Meneghin

JCS,

Was off the air, I had to make 2 overseas family trips. Thinking aloud alerts the brain, methink. Mathematical wanderings help to construct the physical concept which in most cases is determinant.

Hello there,

Yes, John, I think it’s a good idea to get stuck into that book. I have myself the first American printing of the fourth edition (1922). Weyl together with Hilbert were the two great mathematicians of their time. In principle I always thought that the closer you describe nature the less maths you need.

If this process you describe is stretching (expanding) the wavelength, the way you show it with the cone could also be gravitation seen from the gravitating body's end of the process. If I see it right you are presenting EM radiation moving orthogonal to gravitation.

Hello Sirio,

Yes, you may say so. In this particular thread, as clearly specified, I am more concerned with the expansion/extension of the electromagnetic wave. In either case, be it gravitation or expansion/extension, we are talking of a nonlinear field as against all forms of radiation characterized, as amply shown, by the linearity of the field.

Hello John,

I am glad to hear about your working plans laying ahead of you. With reference to the nonlinear field, for the experts out there it only means a second power transformation such as t = (tʹ)²/(1−v²/c²)^½ where intervals between events given for example by the ticking of a clock in a new frame will not be equally spaced as they were before transformation. John, my view is that one needs first a perspicacious mind to probe into the meandering secrets of mother nature and then apply to it the mathematical language. To be a physicist you need the first, to be a mathematician you need the second, and to be a successful physicist you need both.

I'm quite anxous to read more of your own work in greater detail.

Hello JCS,

I have read you with pleasure. Would you now please have a look at my cone-like figure in my thread <the most famous equation of them all> here in the “Speculation” forum. Notice that all radiations (linear field) run orthogonal to gravitation (non-linear field) or, if you see it the other way around, the expanding/extending field (again non-linear field). In my view, this is a grand step towards resolving the unified field theory or theory of everything which Einstein tried to unravel a hundred years ago and which modern Physical Science is unable to solve. You are a theoretical physicist, JCS, take my simple idea, elaborate on it, amplify it and tell the world with a mathematical language why the four forces of nature cannot be unified.

E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²

 

E=mc² only works when you're at rest with respect to the object you're studying.

Hello ydoaPs,

Thank you for taking your time to answer. Yes, I know when the equation works. And yes, I know that E = [(mc²)² + (pc)²]^½, and that when the momentum (momentum vectors of the given system) is zero, the equation reverts back to E=mc². What I don’t know, ydoaPs, is whether we are speaking the same lingo. Since you have purposely ignored the difference between linear speed measured in metres/seconds and angular (radial) speed measured in cycles/seconds, we are, I think, harping two different cords. Over and above, that c² for me means gammarays squared, and if you read it: the speed of light in a vacuum (m/secs), than we really are worlds apart. I apologise if I am unable to come any closer to you. Even the expression <length divided by time> cannot shorten the distance in-between us. Since I tried to see, but I do not see, how anyone can get energy out of a length of nothing divided by a mental abstraction. Nonetheless, if we ever meet I would be pleased to offer you a cup of good Italian coffee.

Before entering into the argument proper, just a few words to specify two points. (1) we shall be dealing with mass-energy equivalence clearly formulated by the equation in question which came to be known as «the most famous equation» not because of the aforesaid equivalence, but because of its association to nuclear fission and its property of quantifying the missing mass into the released energy during fission. (2) although the equation was tested for energy release from nuclear reaction in 1933, and definitely associated to nuclear fission and rendered famous after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, from the outright start Einstein himself in his 1905 papers and in his 1913 papers had associated the equation with the nucleus of the atom when he suggested to test the mass-energy equivalence with radioactive decay.

Given the above facts, we all are now in a position to assess the most famous equation of them all in what may be seen as the right context. I am myself in a position to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that (I) physical science’s most famous equation was not formulated in accordance to its physical significance, (II) I shall introduce the most likely candidate to replace the offender; that is to say, the incongruent c², and then, only then, (III) reformulate the most famous equation of them all. In the meantime here it is, the old girl in its full glory:

Electron microscopes use a particle beam of electrons to illuminate the specimen and have a greater resolving power than light-powered optical microscopes. This is because electrons have wavelengths shorter than visible light (photons) and as such attain a better resolution than optical microscopes (in the order of 0.3 as against 400 nanometres).

With wavelengths this short, we are allowed to move only in the outer shell of the atom; that’s a long way away from the nucleus, a long way away. We may now ask ourselves: why should Einstein be allowed to enter the nucleus with wavelengths much, much longer of those we see above. Don’t run to check them, here they are: the visible light falls in the region of 380-750 nanometres.

The speed of light inside the nucleus of an atom? How can the light’s wavelength enter the nucleus to prise open its core, to poke neutrons, and to split protons? The speed of light in the atom’s “sancta sanctorum”? The thought of it is simply absurd, it’s preposterous.

There never was, of course, the speed of light in the nucleus. What the great man put in there, unaware as he was, it was what I have called “the electromagnetic process for the making of time and space” or, better still, the beginning of it, the early stage of the process whose inner structure covers the gamma rays range of frequencies. This is the weapon that Einstein put inside the nucleus, this is the weapon that can and will split hundreds of protons because it has the strength to do it. The sharp thickly compacted vibrations have very cutting edges and can prise open two protons very easily. The great man knew about it. I recall to mind here that in 1921 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the photoelectric effect. He knew then that even within the visible spectrum range of frequencies, photons from the blue end of it had enough energy (sharper vibration edges) to free electrons from a metal plate whereas photons from the red end of the spectrum weren’t energetic enough to do the job.

As for that c² above, its strength is given to it by its speed. More precisely, the squared speed of light in a vacuum multiplied by the mass of a body (ninentynine per cent of which is inside the nucleus) gives the potential energy entrapped in that body. The wavelength, which at first sight strikes us as being the more important, does not come into it because in the visible spectrum it is much too long and its energy is harmless. A little girl playing with a household mirror can do what she wants with a ray of light. Moreover, the speed of light, like any other electromagnetic radiation, runs orthogonal to the process and obviously retains the same speed of the process whose decreasing energy is progressively bonded for the physical creation of each and every wavelength. This is, then, where the almighty strength lies because this is the expanding and/or extending field or, if you prefer to see it the other way around, the mighty gravitational field.

Given the above facts, it seems to be clear that the equation under scrutiny will have to be adjusted. The most suitable candidate for it would be the first axiom of the theory herein expounded which reads: <time and space are physically created by an electromagnetic process in expansion and/or extension to be identified with the existing electromagnetic spectrum>. The physical properties of this spectrum are well known. What is not known is that its gradation scale is embedded in space and one of its transverse sections is used by the speed of light.

As a matter of fact, the real McCoy is «the electromagnetic process» which I am representing here with a cone-like figure. For example, if we put the cone upright as seen above we can easily see all radiations running orthogonal to it. From the almighty little one at the bottom called gamma radiation... to the visible light confined half way through... to long radio waves. They all have the same speed of their maker, they all have a frequency range which belongs to their maker, they all have an inner structure coming from a transverse section of their maker.

There may be a better candidate, of course, perhaps one equally suitable. In all instances it must have two necessary requisites: (1) it must be able to move inside the nucleus and it must, therefore, have the radial speed of 3x10⁸ cycles per second per metre to quantify the work done, and to honour the genius of Einstein who first formulated the equation, and (2) all or part of it must oscillate in the frequency range of 10¹⁹ cycles per second per metre and over, with wavelength less than 10 picometres to be able to prise open the nucleus and operate inside of it.

As the mathematically trained reader will have already resolved, to do the job of splitting two protons we need both, we need the speed and we need the energy. Think fast please, if the speed were the only thing needed, the third member of the equation could then be microwave radiation (same speed as “c”) or could be radio waves (same speed as “c”) or, on the higher energy side, could be X-rays radiation (same speed as “c”). How can we get energy out of dividing a length (space) by a mental abstraction (time)? Does it make any sense? For Physical Science and physicists it shouldn’t because a length of empty space it has no physical properties and a second of time is even more aleatory. It does, however, make sense if we put away that «mental abstraction» and accept that time and space are a product of nature and as such are themselves pure energy.

Back on track, am I then walking on scientific ground if I say that the only radiation allowed inside the nucleus is gamma radiation? Of course I am. The c² of old must be read and understood as: <gammarays²> because that’s what makes the equation work, because gamma radiation is the only radiation inside the nucleus. Not even X-rays are allowed to get through to the nucleus. Gamma radiation is the only radiation possessing both requisites. Here they are:

(1) Energy: 1.24 Mega electronVolt just enough energy to split protons at will; anything less will not do.

(2) Speed: 3x10⁸ cycles per second per metre = 3x10²⁰ (frequency range) multiplied by 1 picometer, that is, 1x10⁻¹² (wavelength range).

I would now like to think aloud and pass some useful comments. (1) the equation works, the many successful atomic fission blasts can testify to that, (2) it is the speed of that c² and not the energy that translates itself into strength, (3) the speed translates itself into strength because it is radial (it must, since it is inside the nucleus and operates within nuclear energy) and not linear as intended by Relativity, (4) the current formalism, that is: physicists, or anyone else for that matter, refer to that c² as the «speed of light in a vacuum» implying, at the same time, a linear speed... up up and away, (5) I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the speed and not the energy generates the power of the all-important parameter c², (6) I have indirectly proven that there exists in nature a mighty strength (with the same speed as that “c²" able and capable of bursting in to the nucleus and split protons at will, (7) I have labelled this “mighty strength” the electromagnetic process for the expansion of time and/or the extension of space, and given to it the notation C².

Yes, we know that the equation works. Yes, we know that the wavelength which characterizes the speed of light is much too long and cannot even get close to the nucleus, let alone inside of it. Yes, we have seen, and it was well known, that it is the speed of that c² quantifying the nuclear fission taking place inside the nucleus. What then? Yes, it must be said that one cannot split protons sitting at the desk and playing with pencil and paper; to split protons one needs a mighty strength which, inside the nucleus, can only be given by gamma rays. Any first year student knows that to split protons it is needed a neutron and that the fission generates new neutrons in the form of gamma rays. What has the speed of light got to do with all this? Nothing, because although it has the right speed to do the job, it cannot enter into the nucleus since its wavelength is much too long. Further, in the impossibility-type postulate that the speed of light were to enter inside the nucleus, its energy which runs in the order of 2 to 3 electronVolts wouldn’t even tickle a proton, let alone moving it or pushing it into a corner. Actually, the whole idea, as I mentioned earlier, is simply preposterous.

It would be a different thing altogether if the guest were to be «the electromagnetic process» or, better still, its mighty little offspring called gamma radiation the photons of which have about 10.000 times as much energy as the photons in the visible spectrum. We can, then, understand and explain the workings of that C², we can explain the why and the wherefore two or more protons are forced apart. Certainly, we can now thread our way through a crowd, we can blindly walk on familiar ground and we are, needless to say, at liberty to call it «C²» or give it any symbol that comes to mind in this glorious and eventful first blush of the morning.

Yes, the old girl will have to wear a new dress, the last term of the equation is incongruent. However, if there is a similar or better candidate for the job, as suggested above, I shall be the first to acclaim the new comer. In the meanwhile, let me recast the old equation and introduce what it could be a possible solution of it. Here it is:

where C² is the electromagnetic process expanding in time and/or extending in space and, I may add, the most suitable candidate that I know of. I sense a rejection of it, the vibes are telling me that physicists that count are not happy with it. Be it so. Forget about my revolutionary concept of <world processor>. Replace the third member and its unscientific description [where c² is the speed of light in a vacuum (measured in metres per second = linear speed)] with the right term and a proper specification such as [where C² is the gamma rays range of frequencies (measured in cycles per second per metre = radial speed)].

Conclusion

Looking back on past events, Einstein made good use of the speed of light which, in physical science, was and still is a very powerful tool to work with. Oftentimes, he used it as a standard candle or as a radial speed. See, for example, «time dilation», «gravitational potential» and, obviously, the case at hand. I must be thankful to Einstein for this. Actually, the simple fact that the speed of light equals length divided by time has given me a hint and a chance to prove on strict physical ground and on rigorous mathematical reasoning that there exists in nature an electromagnetic process the gradation scale of which is identifiable with that of the electromagnetic spectrum whose gamma rays are at home in the nucleus of an atom. All of this has no significance for Physical Science modern or otherwise; it is of paramount importance to the theory herein advanced whose 1st axiom gives time and space «body», gives time and space a physical structure. A length of space is not some ad hoc definition to suit the operator, a length of space has an inner structure interwoven with extending magnetic and electric forces and fields moving linearly; likewise, an instant of time is not an offspring of a mental abstraction to satisfy the philosophical approach, an instant of time has an inner structure interwoven with expanding magnetic and electric forces and fields moving radially. This is why, I may add, the speed of light can quantify a fission blast.

As a final note, I shall now raise a question: is the idea of a <process put there by mother nature> too far fetched? For the die-hards it certainly is; they may even go as far as tagging it ridiculous. As for me, the humble originator of it, the idea is physically and mathematically sound. If you care to do some brief mental exercises, you can set your seal to what I have just said.

In point of fact, if you accept that time and space are a product of nature created by an electromagnetic process in expansion and/or extension, you have found yourself with a clear picture of the inner structure of space. With this in mind, you will explain and put the word end (as I did) to all relativity paradoxes, to all quantum mechanics paradoxes, to the wave-particle duality, to the two-hundred year-old two-slit experiment, to the frightening concept of nonlocality and to all the rest. With a clear picture of the inner structure of space in mind, you will know what gravitation looks like, and you will explain the poorly understood origin of inertia. You will know the difference between energy and mass, and what makes mass distinct from weight. You will identify the electric charge and you will know why electric charges behave the way they do. After a hundred and twenty years of its discovery you will know what an electron looks like and what is its inner structure. You will know the photon’s inner structure and why at interacting with matter takes the semblance of a particle. You will explain to yourself the <ghostly> behaviour of an excited atom in a resonant cavity. If you can do this and much, much more, you have moved a bit closer to nature, and you can step forward with rapid strides towards your glorious achievements. The price to pay for all this? Well, that’s another story, and a long one.

To round off for the closing, I shall point out that by accepting the physical existence of the electromagnetic process, Science will have found (i) the energy required for the expansion of the universe, (ii) the negative energy missing to satisfy the cosmological equilibrium, (iii) the scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, (iv) the raison d’être itself, and (v) the missing roots of «being and becoming» because the process is an ongoing process from time immemorial.

The reason why E=Mc² still works is due to the fact that c (determined by the measured group velocity of EMR) will always equal V (the phase velocity of EMR) when EMR is traveling through a vacuum. (And most physics equations set the value for c at the speed in which light travels in an empty medium.) This falls into error when light isn't in an empty medium. Under such sircumstances, the EMR group velocity will slow, while the phase velocity will increase. It will generate the same value as c² in vacuum but for different reasons. In my own work, there are two forms of time-space that in combination create "phasic" time-space (name derived from a vector with spin, called a phasor.) I attributed the group velocity of light "c" as a function for linear time-space, and the phase velocity of light as a function for "curved" or angular time-space.

Hello JCS,

First I must apologise for the delayed answer, I was off the air for a few weeks. Secondly, I thank you for pointing out de Broglie’s work, I knew about it and some of it comes from his 1924 Phd work. My own experience is that getting into details it gets you nowhere. You can see it yourself. You have put the accent on the paramount importance of linear speed as against radial speed. They ignored you. Nobody commented. Some because don’t know and some others prefer to keep on talking of linear speed inside the atom and even worst inside the nucleus.

Tomorrow I am going to post something interesting, something to do with E=mc², something to do with the speed of light running linearly in metres per second while working inside the nucleus. If you have some time on hand, let me know please what you think about it.

Don’t forget JCS, in 1907 it suited Einstein and his theory to dismiss the ether and promote the “vacuum” which is Latin for empty, wanting, vacant. More than a century later, the last fifty years of which have seen space to be not empty, they are still talking of “vacuum”. What does it mean “energy of the emptiness”? That’s the way the cookies crumble, my friend. Meanwhile I am an outsider and an outlaw.

I am trying to change my avatar and keeps on coming back the old version. Am I allowed to change it, or am I doing something wrong?

With reference to the Unified Field Theory or Theory of Everything, a possible solution is here suggested in an attempt to come out from the impasse in which Science finds itself. Notwithstanding the time and the talent thrown in to try to incorporate gravitation as portrayed by General Relativity with the Standard Model describing the quantum mechanical nature of the other three fundamental interactions, the road showed itself to be a dead end road.

The persisting interest of Einstein and the pledge of others since the beginning of last century did not give any results; there hasn’t been a way to unify these two physical aspects of the universe. The four forces of nature, we may say, have remained the way they were and the «theory of everything» has itself remained more than ever elusive. In other words, physicists in the name of Science have given up the unified Newtonian conception of the universe and afterwards did not known how to find a new conception equally unified that would respond to those laws that must be rigidly scientific.

What we are seeing in figure 1 may be applicable to a single atom, to free (optical) space or, if you want to, we may extend the physical concept to the entire universe. This we can do keeping in mind that free (optical) space is an expanding substance composed of infinitely many small pointlike electromagnetic point-sources of self-generating energy each having its own unsaturated sink with continuous absorption because of the constant and continuous expansion and/or extension (the wavelength proper of the process for the creation of time and/or space) . These point-sources must be considered inertial frames moving at the speed of light and consequently their slope is 1/c, or 3.335x10^-11 centimetres per second. In addition to it, by extrapolation to cosmological size, we may think of an entire cluster of galaxies containing infinitely many electromagnetic point-sources and retaining the same dynamics of a single point-source.

Following this line of thought and thinking for a moment of the universe as a sphere, we have before our very eyes the two faces of the one and only identical reality; we have first a non-linear electromagnetic field known as the gravitational field when we move from the centre of the sphere towards the outer edge; and then we have a linear electromagnetic field known as radiative field when we move transverse to gravitation and along any given wavelength, that is: forming a circle starting from any point along an imaginary radius vector to indicate the type of electromagnetic radiation we have chosen.

I shall here point out to the reader that my proposition finds strong support in the empirical evidence of:

(1) radiating energy in the gravitational field (non-linear field) where the energy itself is variable even though the speed remains constant throughout the energy steps, and

(2) radiating energy in the electromagnetic field (linear field) where the energy is constant and the speed is constant.

This is then the universe in which we live, and by the look of things it cannot be unified since it appears to have two different physical structures one running transverse to the other. We may then say that in order to explain the large scale behaviour we experience, the universe must be «seen» in two distinct ways. In the non-linear, gravitational or else extending field, the wave propagates with direction in space becoming longer up to, and not exceeding, the finite length of 300 million metres. This explains why at each energy level the wavelength is not the same and the waveform is not the same; and this also explains why along the extension there is no signal transfer, or telecommunication. On the other hand, when viewed transverse to the extension (linear field), the wave may be considered to be «resident energy» and as such maintains the same length and the same form, and it is part, together with similar waves, of a telecommunication channel for any electromagnetic signal to travel with direction in space.

To show the difference between gravitation and the radiative field of Maxwell, I have used a sphere. I would now like to show this difference with a cone-like figure and perhaps render the concept a bit more perceptible. If, for example, we put the cone upright as seen in figure 2 and identify the cone with the electromagnetic spectrum, we can easily imagine all radiations running orthogonal to it. From gamma radiation at the bottom, to visible light confined half way through, to long waves. All radiations have the same speed of the spectrum, they all have a frequency range which belongs to the spectrum, they all have an inner structure coming from a transverse section of the spectrum.

I shall now conclude by saying that the gravitational field is a non-linear field in the same way that the gradation scale of the electromagnetic spectrum is. With the spectrum the wave becomes asymptotically long up to the full length of the gradation scale which is 3x10⁸ metres per second. With gravitation the wave becomes asymptotically short as we approach the gravitating body.

Your smile tells me that you were joking. You e-mail me your address and I shall be honoured to send you a copy of the book.

I am now retired, but during my life I was, amongst other things, a Navy officer, a merchant marine officer, and a consular interpreter. I have therefore learned that time may be expressed in two different ways with, of course, the same meaning.

We may define time using the 24-hour system or the 12-hour system.

The 24-hour system which is what they use in the Army, in the Navy and so forth, the hours go from 00:00 to 24:00 (I am using the colon as you do here in this very attractive and very alluring site, I am referring to “Science Forums”). This way of expressing time implies that the first 12 hours go from midnight to 12 noon and the second 12 hours go from 12 noon to midnight.

The 12-hour system which is the way we find time in common households and in everyday sort of life for the great majority of people, the hours go from 0:00am to 11:59am to cover the period from midnight to noon as the suffix indicates (am=ante meridiem=before noon), and then go from 12:01pm to 11:59pm to cover the period from noon to midnight as the suffix pm indicates (pm=post meridiem=after noon).

I must apologize for the long introduction, but I wanted to make sure that the odd one not conversant with this sort of things would follow and understand what I am saying.

What I actually wanted to say and herewith submit to you was whether it would sound and look better to drop the first zero before and after noon. To ordinary people that zero says very little and for people who at one time or another worked for the government the zero or the suffix can easily be dropped.

I don't think I have comments.

 

I have no idea what your theory is about.

The title of my latest book is: <The physical creation of Time and Space>. This in itself should tell the full story. I have with diligence

introduced, in the first page, the three axioms on which the theory rests. If I am allowed, I would like to use this forum to present my theory a bit at the time. If you are busy and you want to have a quick look now; you can look my profile up and read me at my url www address. In a couple of days I'll post something with the idea of throwing some more light on the all-important point-source.

I was at the Air and Space Museum yesterday and when I got home was reading about some of the newest data ( I think that a pair of telescopes that have been dealing in the invisible spectrum are making a good deal of new data that doesn't fit in with some theories that have been at least challenging or impossible to fit in to a tidy box. I'm pretty sure that a major almost accepted theory of the big bang doesn't work because on of its attributes is that it will slow down and instead they measured the speeding up of galaxies and thats space stuff.

Amber, I am pleased you came back. We can keep in touch through facebook or we can e-mail each other or better still chat here in "the lounge" forum. Peace be with you.

If space consisted of many point-like point-sources, what would constitute the space between the points? If the points generated co-terminous fields, what would determine the motion of the points relative to each other and why wouldn't the gradation between the points and their exteriors be observable?

The space or length in-between the point-sources would be no more no less then Planck's length. What I am suggesting is that the expansion of the universe is uniform and constant and if that's the case it would magnetize each and every pointlike point-source which would then start an electromagnetic chain reaction. Anyway, in a couple of days I'll post a new topic and I'll try to throw a bit more light on the subject.

Amber, I think you have a very fertile and enterprising mind. Let me read your theory a couple of times and then I'll be able to answer you in a more composed and serene way.

To ajb,

Re my theory, I think you're very polite. I wrote a few books about it and the knowable is not a short one. Anyway, I just posted here in this forum "The speed of light and its incongruent function". I know you're busy, but if you find the time to read it let me know what you think about it.

My proposition stands on the assumption that Time and Space are physically created by an electromagnetic process of expansion and/or extension to be identified with the existing electromagnetic spectrum.

With reference to the speed of light used as a term in linear and non-linear equations, I would now like to submit for further evaluation what I have here rightly or wrongly called <incongruent function>.

Let us then see first what happens in the radiative field of the Scottish mathematician James Clerk Maxwell. In the linear field, all electromagnetic radiations are characterized by the linearity of the field which does not posses a binding energy and which runs transverse to the non-linear field; that is, to the process for the creation of time and/or space. This is clearly shown in the description of the photon, viz.:

and in general in all equations describing telecommunications and in those that handle linear optics, for example:

where “t” is the transit time of a light ray through a given substance “x”, and “n” is the refraction index of that substance.

In the non-linear field we see nothing of the kind; that is, it does not exist the so-called ray of light, what we do have instead is the gravitational field or, to put it rightly the other way around, the field where the electromagnetic process for the creation of Time and Space is operative. Moreover, in this field or else in the non-linear field, the adoption of the speed of light “c” with its implicit meaning of distance runner it does not express what is actually happening in the physical action described by a non-linear equation and it is, one might say, altogether theoretically misleading and otiose. To come to the aid of my discourse, I shall now recall the mathematical relations:

putting thus in relief the difference that exists between the radial speed we see in the most famous equation and in the Schwarzschild radius on the one hand and the linear speed of light of (1a) and (1b) on the other, and point out their different physical meaning, and underline as well that their physical function does not explain the fact that they are today, and always were, mathematically treated on the same footing.

As for the physical function of that “c” symbol, I would like to make clear that a ray of light may be stopped, bent, or bounced back by a common mirror for domestic use. As we all know, and as experience tells, an ordinary sheet of lead can stop, in the linear field, X-ray radiations; radiations which are much more energetic of those characterizing a ray of light.

For example, the relevant scientific literature has often represented and represents, for the benefit of the specialists and non, the sketch of a ray of light, in a candle-like re-entry towards a black hole, or if you prefer, becoming bent by the gravitational force exercised by a black hole. This sort of exercise, as I have just said, may be done by a plain mirror. There is no need, I say, we necessitate not a black hole to do it. The spectacle that a black hole would offer, if it were to exist, it would be to compress and therefore to shorten, up to invalidate the non-linear field or, what comes to the same thing, the process of temporal expansion and/or spatial extension. This would simply mean to render null and void the physical creation of our universe which is expanding in time and extending in space at the point (celestial coordinates) where it is supposed to exist a black hole.

In order to define equation (2a), I shall say that usually the total nuclear mass is always less of its own constituent particles. If, for example, we bombard with gamma radiation and split a deuterium called also deuteron or heavy hydrogen ₁²H whose molar mass is 2.01355 g mol⁻¹ into a proton and a neutron, the sum of their respective masses (proton and neutron), that is: 1.00728 and 1.00867 is 0.00240 g mol⁻¹ less than the nuclear mass as a whole. As a matter of fact, the noted difference in energies may be conveniently ascribed to the left-hand side of equation (2a) which for convenience I shall now put in a clear quantitative form, viz.;

where ΔE_b known as the binding energy, can be thought of as the change in internal energy needed to split the nucleus. In defining equation 2a, I wanted to put in relief how the speed of light, which can go from here to the Moon in less than a second, has been incongruently employed within the radial energy of the nucleus of an atom. What is, I may ask, its physical function with respect to the force of attraction of two or more protons inside the nucleus of an atom? How can we explain that to know the force required to separate two protons we must multiply their binding energy by the speed of light squared (c²)? The linear speed of light in the nucleus of an atom, inside this <invisible niche> makes no sense, no sense at all. It would make a lot of sense though if, and only if, we can change the deceiving semblance of that c² and clothe it with its rightful physical nature, with its radial non-linear function which in the case under consideration is rightly operating inside of a nucleus whose energy becomes weaker and weaker as we move out and away from its core.

To round off for the closing, my argument shouldn’t leave any doubts in our mind that the physical action of the “c” symbol that we see in (1a) and in (1b) and the one that we see in (2a) and (2b) is not the same. In other words, the speed of light in the form we have inherited it from the days of Maxwell, and with its linearity tag acquired and promoted by relativity, it does not belong in equations operating in the non-linear field.

When all is said and done, it is not hard to see that the speed of light as a distance runner is not the same speed of light used since the beginning of last century as the gravitational potential. While the former is an expression of electromagnetic radiation whose constant energy is frequency-dependent and which runs transverse to the physical process for the creation of time and space; the latter is the process itself covering the full range of frequencies and the physical make-up of which is characterized by bonded energy which can never be shielded by a sheet of lead or by a whole planet made of lead. A binding energy alien to any electromagnetic signal the way it came down to us, as a mathematical construct, from Maxwell.

The speed of light, or what may be rightly called the radial speed of the physical process of creation is another thing altogether. Here, we see strength, we feel a push, we perceive a display of might, we sense an energy progressively bonded for the physical creation of each and every wavelength. This is not just an amorphous ray of light, we are talking about. This is a mechanism of creation for the expansion of time and the extension of space. This is a physical electromagnetic process with a reality of its own; it exists in free (optical) space <universal expansion>, it coexists in matter <E=mc²> and it is therefore the prime constituent of all there is in the universe.

The only thing I can say is that my theory is self consistent and self-contained throughout and it stands on three axioms:

(1) Time and space are physically created by an electromagnetic process of expansion and/or extension to be identified with the existing electromagnetic spectrum.

(2) Time and space have their origin in each and every electromagnetic point-source in free space as well as in matter.

(3) Given (1) and (2), it follows that the speed at which time and space are created (a) is the upper limit and dictates the physical laws in the world we live in [fully expanded time dimension], and (b) it is a function of linear and non-linear motion in free space.

With reference to the expanding/extending process, I am saying a bit in my topic “Will science change in the near future?” which is already here in this forum.

This makes me think of inflation driven by a vector rather than a scalar field, which I don't think is quite what you are thinking of. Without any real mathematics, it is hard to understand what you are trying to suggest.

Taken the point. I should have represented the electromagnetic spectrum, as I have done in two other occasions, with a solid 1/8 of a sphere.

Inflation gives rise to an accelerating expansion of the universe.

Again you’re driven by cosmological thoughts. I prefer and enjoy local games on the front lawn or in the backyard rather than going 13 and a half million light years down the road to play.

It is entirely possible that space-time has some kind of granular or cellular structure. Philosophically, we expect this by naïvely applying quantum mechanics to space-time. Space-time may well be broken up into "Planck cells".

 

It is generally believed that a quantum version of gravity should exist, this would "marry" general relativity with quantum mechanics. I would expect that any theory would shed deeper light on quantum mechanics and classical gravity.

It’s amazing. Scientists, and theoretical physicists in particular, recall to mind a winning football team playing away from home on an unknown field covered by a thick fog dimming the sight. If you scoring under these circumstances, and scientists did score some beauties, what will you do once that Time and Space, in their fully fledged physical entity, will be part of modern science?

What paradoxes in relativity are you talking about? As far as I know there are no paradoxes. The theory is self-consistent and has passed all experimental tests. Things like the "twin paradox" is really due to insisting on thinking of space and time rather than space-time.

The problem with paradoxes, as I was saying to your colleague D H, is that after a while, and before you know it, they become dogmas or, what comes to the same thing, unquestionable truths. I am talking about Relativity paradoxes. The twin paradox, seeing that you have mentioned it, fully justified «a la John Archibald Wheeler» with geodesics if you like path lengths or carefully driven in «a la Robert Mills» with acceleration if you prefer velocity.

Anyway, it is just not known what caused the big bang. I assume this is what you are thinking about. The trouble is we do not have a good handle on the physics at such high temperatures and densities that must have been present just after the big bang.

It didn't even cross my mind. Again, cosmology is too hazy for me. To conclude my answer, I am saying the same thing as you do only in a much more compacted way. I am doing it with physical parsimony. I don’t need a set of twins to demonstrate that time is a variable parameter. I have just shown that motion, uniform or otherwise, shortens the unit measure of time simply because time is embedded into space, that’s all there is to it. And I can suggest a very simple laboratory experiment to prove my assertion.

As an introductory note, I shall say that the theory behind my ranting and raving, or bits and pieces therein, is self consistent throughout. With reference to the above title I would like to mention that a common way of thinking is to consider time and space in their aspect of absolute quantities. Seen as physical quantities, time and space are almost always thought of: the first in terms of millions of years, and the second in terms of intergalactic space. What I have in mind instead is the smallest unit measure of time and space: the “second of time” and the corresponding “distance of space” which is 300 million metres, roughly from here to the moon. In my work, I am also giving for granted: radial distance for time and linear distance for space.

Now then, if we recall to mind Minkowski’s idea of spacetime and make an appeal to good old Pythagoras as Minkowski himself did, we may want to draw something like this:

We must now imagine that at the intersection of the ordinate and the abscissa (origin) there exists a process something similar to what Aristotle had in mind when, in his book of physics, he wrote: «Time is therefore either a process or is somehow dependent upon a process; and since it is not the former, it must be the latter».

Let us now go a step further than Aristotle. Let us think of the process as being an electromagnetic process for the physical creation of Time and Space which we can easily identify, as I am now showing, with the electromagnetic spectrum.

Think fast, please. If Time and Space are made by a process and are a product of nature, they have to be made in small ascending bits. Their unit measure would therefore be very tiny at the beginning (origin) and it would reach the full length (expansion in time and extension in space) at the end (1 second = 300 million metres), hence a gradation scale such as the above spectrum to satisfy our two main requirements:

(a) the building up of something along the ascending scale; that is, the wavelength, and

(b) the required energy decrease along the ascending scale, energy needed for the build-up of the wavelength.

In other words, I am proposing the existence of a physical process in antithesis to the mental abstraction used to describe «time» and «space». What has put my mind in motion was the simple realization that science, for a long time now, was and still is unable to say what is the intrinsic nature and/or physical make-up, if any, of both time and space.

Back to good old Pythagoras. If, for argument sake, we are standing still, as we actually are, on the intersection point of the ordinate/abscissa, then, we would experience only the temporal part of the process (imagine an expanding sinusoid going upwards along the ordinate), that is: we would get one second old for each second of the clock.

If, as a second option, we move along the abscissa be it just walking, by car or by the fastest possible way on this planet; we would experience as well a very small part, very tiny indeed, of the spatial process and we get older slightly less; that is, our unit measure of time has become shorter with respect to someone standing still. The faster we go, the shorter will be the unit length of time.

The third option is that in which we move at the velocity of the process, that is: if we were, hypothetically speaking, riding a ray of light, we would suffer only the spatial process. We would cover, in this case, 300 million metres of space for each second of the clock, without experiencing time and therefore without getting older.

Yes, it isn’t what you would call orthodox thinking. It has done one thing though. If Time and Space are physically created by nature; that is, if they are a product of nature, as they should and appear to be, all the unanswered questions plaguing Quantum mechanics and its branches can be easily explained; and all the Relativity paradoxes are no longer there.

I shall close my proposition by recalling to mind Einstein and his book «The principle of Relativity» Dover Edition. A reprint of the original 1923 edition published by Methuen and Company Ltd. At page 106 he says and I quote ...If we did not satisfy this condition, we would arrive at a definition of time by the application of which time would merge explicitly into the laws of nature, and this would certainly be unnatural and unpractical unquote. There you have it. A son of his own time. A man of science strongly conditioned by the intellectual influence of Immanuel Kant. As a matter of fact, there was no scholar in those days who did not have on his desk a copy of «Kritik der reinen Vernunft». We all must agree that Kant with his «Critique of Pure Reason» did really have an enormous influence on the scientific and philosophical thinking of the western world. It was most unfortunate that all, and I say all, the forefathers of modern Science drank avidly from that chalice.

With reference to "introducing myself", I never received an e-mail. Maybe this is because I joined in as a facebook member. Since I would like to register properly and I would also like to become a fully fledged member, please instruct me as to the proper practice to follow. Thank you

To DH

I am well aware of what a paradox is to you. Nothing new under the sun. History tells that once a paradox becomes a customary thing runs the risk of becoming a dogma, that is: an unquestionable truth. That's OK with me. I am respectful of it and I think it is a very good way of explaining something which cannot be explained otherwise. This is what I am doing now. If time is embedded in space then if someone walks through it, his getting older less than his twin brother is the most natural thing to happen. There is no need to explain a "created and unwanted" paradox. If time is a product of nature, as it appears to be, an airline pilot after flying all his life for a crust would become some 20 seconds biologically younger than his twin brother. Easy explained. There is no paradox period.

With this first thread, I would like to put forward a proposition which science may or may not, in the near future, find it a suitable alternative to the ongoing state of things. I am specifically referring to the Relativity paradoxes and to the many unanswered questions plaguing Quantum mechanics. With both these scientific disciplines, the problem seems to rest and to lean heavily:

(a) on the abstract status of «time», and

(b) on the emptiness of «space».

To make a long story short, the parameter «time» when applied to Science in general has been made to play the part of the interloper ever since natural philosophy became science, that is: ever since Galileo. Likewise, the parameter «space» was first tainted by the word «ether» which suggested «alchemy» or something magic; and then, even worst, by the word «vacuum». That was the end of space as a physical entity.

This brings me back to my proposition. As a matter of fact, it is my intention to clothe time and space as physical entities, and in so doing eliminate all the paradoxes infesting Relativity and all the problems plaguing Quantum mechanics. Here I go: time and space are physically created by an electromagnetic process to be identified with the existing electromagnetic spectrum. This would imply that free (optical) space is an expanding substance composed of infinitely many small pointlike electromagnetic point-sources of self-generating energy each having its own unsaturated sink with continuous absorption (the wavelength proper of the process for the creation of time and/or space). More important still, the proposition would give Time and Space “body” and in a way will take us back to Poincaré’s relativity, that is: to Lorentz and Poincaré absolute frame of reference.

To hit the nail on the head, I should say that if time is made in the whole of space; then, each point-source carries its own time and if one walks over the point-sources, flies over them or whatever his unit measure of time becomes shorter. The faster the walking, the shorter the unit measure of time and... the paradox is no longer there.

In closing, and with my mind on the parameter «time», I would like to mention that Roger Penrose, eminent scientist and Rouse Ball professor at the university of Oxford, a couple of paragraphs before the end of chapter 8 of his book «The emperor’s new mind», says something like this: «In my opinion our present view of physical reality, particularly in relation to the nature of “time”, it’s ripe for a big overturning, maybe even bigger of that caused by present day Relativity and Quantum mechanics». I have translated from my Italian copy of the book.

I joined in two days ago and I must say I agree with genecks. I have actually sent an e-mail to staff etc.. asking where is the "introduce yourself forum" located.