The electromagnetic process for the making of Time ans Space

[Meneghin]

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.

[ajb]

Let us think of the process as being an electromagnetic process for the physical creation of Time and Space...

 

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.

 

Inflation gives rise to an accelerating expansion of the universe.

 

If Time and Space are made by a process and are a product of nature, they have to be made in small ascending bits.

 

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".

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

[Meneghin]

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.

[ajb]

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.

 

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.

 

I am still very much in the dark as to what you are suggesting.

 

You suggest that from a point on which we have an electromagnetic field there is some process in which 3+1 dimensional space-time is created? Or am I reading this all wrong?

 

 

 

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?

 

Space and time are part of modern physics. The best classical description to date is general relativity. Anyone will accepted that GR cannot be the final word on the nature of space and time. It has quite generically singularities and seems not to have a well founded quantum version (within perturbation theory anyway).

 

The more philosophical question of what is time to my mind has no satisfactory answer. I however, don't let that bother me as I know how to deal with time within relativity. I will let others worry about what time is!

[Meneghin]

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.

[ajb]

Great, so can we have a look at your theory?

[Meneghin]

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.

[ajb]

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.

 

I don't think I have comments.

 

I have no idea what your theory is about.

[Meneghin]

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.

[ajb]

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

 

You want me to buy your book?

 

You will have to convince me here before I do that!

[Meneghin]

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.