eytan_il

**************************************************************************************** IMPORTANT: All copyrights reserved to JMP - Journal of Modern Physics !!! **************************************************************************************** **************************************************************************************** IMPORTANT: All copyrights reserved to JMP - Journal of Modern Physics !!! **************************************************************************************** IMPORTANT: ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED TO JMP - JOURNAL OF MODERN PHYSICS !!! http://freepdfhosting.com/f7a881b129.pdf http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time Warm regards, Eytan Suchard.

Dear colleague, no one knows how it started and what were the conditions. Quantum Mechanics has creation and destruction operators such that locally energy does not have to be preserved, however, globally energy is not created ex-nihilo. Will it help if I say that the source of the physical world is metaphysical ? I don't think so, physics has its own inherent limits for example, it is based on mathematics and mathematics has a great "geological fault" in the form of Kurt Goedel's/Godel's incompleteness theorem or even worse, Goedel/Godel Tarsky theorem. As for your impression on particles interactions, such interactions comply with Group Theory.

Dear readers, Here is a list of events that lead to an offered theory I would like you to comment on. 1) The main idea was that a particle clock measures time from the big bang to each event. From all such particles we pick up (problem with axiom of choice unless only recursive curves are allowed) the ones that measured the maximum proper time. Geodesic curves measure locally maximal proper time. So our selection is apparently from all geodesic curves connecting an event to the big bang. This idea leads to a scalar field of time but the gradient of the field has unacceptable singularities where there is matter. To resolve this problem we must assume that our test particles will not move along geodesic curves everywhere but only in vacuum. We are coerced to accept that the motion of our particle clocks will not be geodesic in matter. Our Lagrangian must demand that the curvature of the curves will be minimized along with the Ricci scalar curvature of space-time. One outcome is physics without matter because matter will be simply non zero curvature of the gradient of the time field. Einstein's equation will become geometric with curvature functions on both sides. That lead to a theory based on an operator I used in US patent : 7,424,462 that was submitted in 2004 and accepted in 2008. My boss, Mr Yossi Avni approved my action operator in handwritten signature recognition software as a minimum cost function in 2003. The offered action is therefore interesting also in applied mathematics. 2) In the past I focused on representation of perpendicular time in order to avoid Kerr like metric tensors of space-time. That is possible at least locally but referees hated the idea and therefore it was almost totally removed from my original paper. 3) In the papers I previously submitted to Foundations of Physics, Canadian Journal of Physics, and Physical Review Letters D. Referees objected that it will use absolute time. Part of it is my fault that I didn't make it clear enough that the gradient of the discussed time field is local. They had objected the idea of using a value that is not locally calculated but they had failed to notice that the offered action does not explicitly use such a value but rather its local gardient. This explanation was added to the current paper. 4) I am dyslexic and that fact leads to extreme difficulties in manipulating mathematical symbols. That caused many errors in Euler Lagrange equations that took me years to fix, also thanks to professor David Lovelock. After the errors were fixed, I could at last show conservation laws and geodesical motion of the curvature. That is a surprise. The particle clocks are not geodesic in motion but the field of their curvature (perpendicular to their motion) is !!! These calculation are of high importance and they are now in the paper. 5) It is apparent that the theory predicts Dark Matter. That subject was included. 6) Finally there is a test to the theory. If the theory is "correct" then photons must slow down in sub atomic level. It is a clear cut test. Either the theory works or not !!! The bad news are that no such effect has ever been observed. That doesn't mean the effect is untrue. Known slowing down of light in matter is mainly due to emission chains. One photon is absorbed and a new one is emitted. No single photon has ever been observed slowing down in atomic or in sub-atomic level, I have no idea how to devise such an experiment or if it is possible at all. It is quite possible that due to this prediction, my research for the last 10 years will go down the drain but that is physics and its difference from mathematics. A theory must agree with observation. Here are links to the paper. If it works, it is a breakthrough. If not then at least take it as an attempt. Eitehr way I'm not different than any other researcher in the field. The only difference is that the circumstances lead to a theory that started in computerized vision and not in physics. If there is a Journal that accepts the paper, it will be granted copyrights and therefore the links in this message will have to be removed. Here are links. Most important is if there are any ideas of how to show 6 is correct !!! http://freepdfhosting.com/f7a881b129.pdf http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time Warm regards, Eytan Suchard. BE_Problem4.pdf

Hi, why didn't you write 73 in the covariant form. The 4-speed is (c,0,0,sqrt(R/r)) * Gamma. Gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Then the divergence has to be zero. Forgot to tell you that in the calculation of the divergence you must use the metric tensor because differentiation is done by coordinates. These cope with the projection of local coordinates on the coordinate system of a far observer because you use the Schwarzschild metric tensor.

The singularity in which our cosmos begins can have two sides. Since time begins in that singularity it can have a negative axis. Along the negative side of the axis the time will grow in the negative direction. Negative time in this sense does not mean it goes backwards. It will be the time just like time is measured on our side of the singularity. Please try to imagine two cones glued one to the other by their point.

1) Let us begin with the end, " ( the relentless march of time, universal time or local time ? ) " the universe does manifest some irreversibility in terms of universal time Universal time can be measured as maximal proper time along all geodesic curves connecting an event to the big bang. Each geodesic curve measures local maximum of proper time. From all such curves connecting an event 'e' to the big bang, we choose the ones along which absolute maximum proper time is measured. In that way, to each event in space time we can attach a number. Since this number grows along curves we can say that such a model of space-time has memory. You have to understand, however, the physicists do not like such an idea because it shows time which is absolute and not relative. For this reason my paper was rejected for several times despite mathematical beauty and simplicity. On the other hand it is possible that Nature does not really remember what is the absolute maximum time to each event because the theory I presented uses only the gradient of that time and the gradient is purely local. 2) "how can you have negative frequency ?". This question is tantamount to mine. How can we have absolute time ? We can in a mathematical description where the outcome with physical meaning is the gradient of such a time. The meaningful outcome of negative frequencies will be the reconstructed signal. A mathematical model has to work. Whether its intermediate products have a physical meaning or not, does not have to bother you as long as the outcome makes sense. 3) QM used imaginary functions above the Hilbert space with the self adjoint opertor. The value with physical meaning will not be the imaginary functions. It will be the square norm of such functions. There are many such examples in physics.

"And one more question; if anything with a mass of zero has to move at C, it would seem to make sense that anything with a mass greater than zero would have to move also. This is not exactly worded like a question, but it is a question". This understanding is correct only in QM i.e. zero state energy. That is why it seems to me correct to make this information available. "if the object is moving" succeeded to confuse me.

Nope, “supercahfed” talks about a quantum state machine. It has nothing to do with locality and non locality or with superposition of waves that solve any linear partial differential equation. He addressed the problem that a quantum state machine has all the states possible until observed. Whether the observed state can exist without an observer is a very deep question that is not within the reach of physics. Will a photon hit a detector if there is no observer ? If there is no observer, then there is no detector. An observer is implicitly conscious. That fact can’t be swept under the carpet just as a matter of convenience. As a friend of mine once said, “philosophy is the watchdog of science”. Indeed I agree that this subject is not only on the fringes of physics but out of its jurisdiction. The term “observer” is often used in quantum mechanics but to fully understand it we have to be familiar with the excellent work by the deceased neurophysiologist philosopher and MD, professor Yeshyahu Leibowitz and his prodigious essay, “Foundations of the Psychophysical Problem”. If a subject is stabbed in his toe by a needle, then the pulse from the wound to the brain can be measured by both an external observer and by the tested subject. So are the neural activities, say 20 pulses per second from neuron 31 to neuron 15, 10 pulses from neuron 26 to neuron 65 etc. The entire neural process is accessible to the observer just as it is accessible by measurement to the tested subject. However, the pain is felt by the tested subject alone. If the observer wants to out-wise the problem and objectively feel the pain that the tested subject feels, the observer connects a neural fiber from his/her brain to the tested subject’s brain. But then the observer will experience the pain through his media/brain and thus his feeling will be subjective again. The experience is split between two worlds, publicly owned physical world and privately owned psychic world. There is apparent correlation between the two. More pulses per second mean more pain. However, does correlation mean causation? The answer is no. We can roughly say the pulses per second are a “report” from the physical report. This report can be disrupted by drugs or by illness, however, pain and pleasure will never be accessible by physical units of Volts, Meter per Second, Joules or by pulses per second. There is no meaning to the phrase “the neural network generates pain” or “the neural process generates pain/pleasure”. It has no comprehensible meaning. The neuro-sensory integration theories - and there are many - fail to grasp this problem. All the integration and the processing that the brain does can’t describe pain and pleasure in terms of mathematics and/or in terms of physics. I would finish with a known sentence from Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “Its not the brain that thinks, it is the owner of the brain who thinks with the brain”. Our brains or maybe we, are capable of more than just using mathematics as a prosthetic tool of consciousness. Physics is not a science whose goal is to make us fail the Turing test.

Here you touched a very sensitive problem. We see a system of interacting particles as an object with rest mass regardless of weather there are moving parts in it or not. For the physicist, such a system is a packed black box. However, the laws of physics are totally local and a "system of particles" is not. If we look at the parts of a system of interacting particles, we will see that indeed no part is at rest, ever. That simply means that classical physics only approximates such a system. Only when there are effects that can't be ignored, we look at the parts of the system, e.g. Stern - Gerlach experiment. Objects at rest are nothing more than figments of the imagination and so are objects in general. The amazing fact is that we can represent an entire system of particles as one object by a wave function of that system. The act of putting the pieces together to form an object at rest is purely conscious, not phenomenological !!! The fact that quantum mechanics agrees with that conscious synthesis is simply a miracle.

E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2 is correct only if you mean m(0), the rest mass. m(0)^2 c^4 + p^2c^2 = ( m(0)^2c^4(1-v^2/c^2) + m(0)^2v^2c^2 ) / (1-v^2/c^2) = m(0)2c^4/(1-v^2/c^2) = E^2. Without writing explicitly m(0), the equation is pedagogically wrong.

By General Relativity, negative rest mass means positive Ricci curvature of space-time. Imaginary wave functions will not lead to negative rest mass. if that was the purpose of the original question. My work was on that exact subject for the last 10 years. It seems that there is a way to use a curvature operator that was part of my work in computerized vision in 2003, such that Matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy (~Negative mass) will be all solutions of the same basic equation. Dark Energy as I see it, does not appear as matter and it does not involve purely imaginary wave functions. I strongly recommend that you read about Chameleon scalar fields to achieve a more illuminating idea of how dark energy may exist without the need of imagery functions..

Dear moderator, Look at the end of the paper Dark Matter at page 28. Please return the link. Kind regards, Eytan (Ethan). Real physics is not dogmatic. I worked on that exact subject for the last 10 years.

Hi, I've already written an answer. links deleted

We can't be 100% sure that there are no mechanisms in Nature that violate the second law of thermodynamics. For example, it is possible that a super massive black hole has an upper mass limit such that mass absorbed by the black hole that exceeds this limit, is emitted in an unfamiliar form which later turns back into hydrogen. Such possible effects are not related to Hawking radiation ! We simply don't know. We should never forget that physics is a collection of models that quantitatively predict observations and as such, they are not the absolute truth but rather serve current and future technologies. We can't be sure about the second law of thermodynamics as long as we do not understand black holes in the quantum level. However, the accelerated cosmic expansion is a clue that in the cosmic level there is an irreversible process.

Me neither. Entropy, without using logarithms and deep mathematical interpretations simply deals with statistically irreversible processes. For example, if half of the molecules of some gas have high thermal energy and half have low energy but they are mixed together, it will require energy to separate the mixture to hot gas and to cold gas. By the way, that is the form of energy that creates wind and storms, for example, tornado. In big words, entropy is a mathematical exprssion of mixture of physical states. It is easy to mix and the system releases energy as a result. To bring the system to its pre-mix state, it requires energy. The claim that entropy is symmetric with time seems to have no sense at all.