michel123456 Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) One has to observe that Klaynos & Swansont introduced in the discussion the concept that change in something can occur without motion. Swansont supported Klaynos statement that Modern atomic clocks use oscillations in energy levels. These do not involve motion. Why a change in energy level does not involve motion? It is not to Daedalus to prove that, it is to Swansont or Klaynos to support their argument. Edited July 10, 2011 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 As long as you can define the wave function mathematically, then yes it is in motion. Refer to the explanation below as explained from the previous post. y = sin(x) represents motion? How so? It is his repsonsibility to uphold his end of the debate. I showed mathematically how we can infer motion when he insists that motion is not inherent. I have upheld my responsibility to defend my statements. Now he must also defend his statements. I am not repsonsible for proving him right. Or are we to just take one persons word, without evidence, as scientific fact? It may be that you do not fully realize the scope of my statements concerning mathematical spaces or you would have posted a counter argument showing how I would be incorrect. Since you responded in such manner as to infer that I do not understand mathematics or have not defended my statements, then I suggest that you read the entirety of this thread. Your claim, your burden of proof. It's not my job to teach you QM, nor is math without experimental support sufficient to show anything; your math so far has been describing classical physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom#Wavefunction Where is the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 10, 2011 Author Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) y = sin(x) represents motion? How so? The input variable [math]x[/math] implies motion along the [math]x[/math] axis. Remove the motion of [math]x[/math] from the equation and you lose the input for which you are relating to the [math]y[/math] axis. Therefore, [math]sin[/math] looses meaning. It not a matter of physics at this point, but one that specifies motion is nothing more than a measure of a rate of change. Edited July 10, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Why a change in energy level does not involve motion? It is not to Daedalus to prove that, it is to Swansont or Klaynos to support their argument. Sure it is. He has to show his claim works within the framework of QM. Klaynos and I have objected because his claims were solely based on classical models. Motion and trajectories take on a very different meaning (or are abandoned altogether) in QM systems The input variable [math]x[/math] implies motion along the [math]x[/math] axis. Remove the motion of [math]x[/math] from the equation and you lose the input for which you are relating to the [math]y[/math] axis. Therefore, [math]sin[/math] looses meaning. It not a matter of physics at this point, but one that specifies motion is nothing more than a measure of a rate of change. No it doesn't. Motion implies a variation in time, not position. If there is motion, what is the speed here? what is dx/dt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 10, 2011 Author Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) Sure it is. He has to show his claim works within the framework of QM. Klaynos and I have objected because his claims were solely based on classical models. Plus you have to be able to show why this is false If there was no motion inherent in mathematical spaces, then you would not be able to derive functions which traverse the mathematical spaces for which they are defined. This is because you would not be able to define a function in terms of , etc... The input implies motion along the axis. Therefore it is impossible for any physical system which is constructed of functions within mathematical spaces to ignore motion. The short hand version is that [math]\frac{dx}{dt}[/math] is no different than [math]\frac{dx}{dy}[/math], or [math]\frac{dx}{dx}[/math], and you cannot define a function, [math]f(x),f'(x),f''(x)[/math], etc... such that I am unable to infer motion as a rate of change along the axes of the specified mathematical space. This would mean that you would have to be able to describe QM without a mathematical space and use functions from which I would not be able to infer motion. Edited July 10, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 The short hand version is that [math]\frac{dx}{dt}[/math] is no different than [math]\frac{dx}{dy}[/math], or [math]\frac{dx}{dx}[/math], and you cannot define a function, [math]f(x),f'(x),f''(x)[/math], etc... such that I am unable to infer motion as a rate of change along the axes of the specified mathematical space. So a rigid structure that I can describe with a mathematical function is in fact moving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 10, 2011 Author Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) So a rigid structure that I can describe with a mathematical function is in fact moving? Sure it is when you consider that you cannot, with 100% certainty, measure the length or position of such object. This can be shown with the laws of thermodynamics. Since a body's temperature affects the QM state of the atoms, the matter either contracts or expands. So the length of the body is in motion with respect to temperature. You would not only have to calculate the length and trajectory of the body from your choosen frame of reference, but you would also have to account for QM affects to even be able to determine the center of mass for the body to be able to tell me the object's true position or size in relation to your choosen coordinate system. Your claim, your burden of proof. It's not my job to teach you QM, nor is math without experimental support sufficient to show anything; your math so far has been describing classical physics. I have not described motion using any form of classical physics. I never said that position, length, or any other quantity can be determined absolutely. That is an assumption you made by not clearly reading my posts. It may be that I have not properly explained myself. Regardless of your stance, you cannot dismiss my claims by stating such things without demonstrating why or how I have used such notions in physics in a classical, non-modern way. Also, you have not shown any mathematics to support your claims. Am I to believe that you are free from the burden of proof and that this only applies to me or anyone else that proposes theories that might not necessarily fit within your current views on Physics? My point is simple in that QM uses a metric mathematical space which represents our physical universe. Because physics makes assertions and claims using the abstraction of mathematics, you cannot say that [math]f(x)[/math] does not imply physical motion. This is because the input [math]x[/math] implies motion along the [math]x[/math] axis of the mathematical space that QM uses to describe its processes. Therefore we can infer motion from functions operating in mathematical spaces that represent our physical world. I could use any physical process, classically defined or accepted by modern science, and still arrive at the same conclusion regarding motion. The dictionary is not a technical resource. QM tells us (via deBroglie and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that the electron is a wave and there is a limit to how well you could determine its location. Motion is still infered even from your own arguments of the deBroglie matter wave as you cannot describe the deBroglie Matter Wave without velocity or any other form of motion. This implies that motion is still an integral part of QM from which you cannot ignore or get rid of by dismissing my comments. And, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is only true because motion exists. So a rigid structure that I can describe with a mathematical function is in fact moving? We cannot relate such simple HS mathematics to the mechanics which describe the laws of nature. When dealing with abstract notions of a definite static length, position, or any other classically defined notion, we must accept that these are pure mathematical abstractions and cannot be used to describe the universe with 100% certainty. Plus any mathematical functions you choose to describe a physical system are inherently bound to describing the rate of change for such functions with respect to the input or output of the function. Let me clarify a relevant point on the topic of rates of change. When looking at any form of [math]d?/d?[/math] with the concept that this rate of change represents a physical process, then the mathematical construct which represents the rate of change becomes a description of physical motion whether it is related to time, temperature, or any other physical quantity. I understand that you are referring to motion as defined below: More generally, the term motion signifies any temporal change in a physical system. For example, one can talk about motion of a wave or a quantum particle (or any other field) where the concept location does not apply. However, I must ask you to consider that we can infer motion in relation to time even when stating rates of change that do not describe its motion or change with respect to time. This is because, as mentioned in Wikipedia, motion signifies any temporal change in a physical system. Therefore I can imply that any physical rate of change is motion in relation to time regardless if the physical rate of change uses time or not. Because you relate motion with respect to time is irrelevant. I can relate my displacement along the [math]x[/math] axis to any other physical quantity because the physical system from which this quantity is defined relates such quantity to time. This means that I could use the rate at which a given species of bacteria reproduces as the basis for my time keeping device. Therefore I can relate my [math]x[/math] position to the number of bacteria in my time keeping device. I can also relate any other physical quantity to the [math]x[/math] position of a car that I am riding in instead of using time. I could state that for every meter I travelled along the [math]x[/math] axis, that I measured a displacement of two meters along the [math]y[/math] axis. The reason why we do not do this is because we cannot derive consistent relationships which can describe such mechanics in an accurate and precise way. This is why time works for our purposes and gives us an explanation as to why we can always describe rates of change with respect to time. This is because regardless of our frame of reference, we cannot choose a coordinate system where motion through time can no longer be implied. If you claim that you can, then by all means go live at a position defined by that coordinate system. You will live longer : ) So my statement regarding motion still stands: If there was no motion inherent in mathematical spaces, then you would not be able to derive functions which traverse the mathematical spaces for which they are defined. This is because you would not be able to define a function in terms of , etc... The input implies motion along the axis. Therefore it is impossible for any physical system which is constructed of functions within mathematical spaces to ignore motion. To state that motion is not inherent in the system, is to deny the mathematical spaces and functions for which any physical system can be constructed. We might as well take a creationists standpoint to physics and deny the very basis for which we define and construct physical processes. You may argue that a function exists from negative infinity to positive infinity. To this I would reply; It is not that the function exists, but that it defines a relationship between two or more related quantities. This relationship is what defines the "motion" that relates these quantites to one another. Or more accurately, describes the rate of change along the axes of the specified mathematical space. Since all of the universe exists in physical space, and that this space can be drescribed mathematically, then you must concede and realize that motionless QM is false. This is because it must operate using functions that describe the mechanics of such system in the specified mathematical space that decribes our universe. If you remove all forms of motion from the physical system, you are left with functions that have no inputs or outputs, , and therefore would not even be able to describe such physical system in the first place. I have no doubts that QM can imply "perceived" motionless oscillation. It's just that QM would not exist if motion was not inherent in the mathematical space in the first place. Therefore your arguments about motion being absent from the phenomena of time is false and you cannot use QM, or any other physical system, to prove that motion is not inherent in time or that we cannot infer its existence. Unless you can show that you can define the wave function without using any form of metric space and functions from which we can infer motion through that space, then the above statement holds true. Time can be considered as motion through a spatial dimension no different than the other three observable spatial dimensions. The only reason why we relate motion to time is that we are expanding with the big-bang through all spatial dimensions. We can deduce that we move at the speed of light through the fourth dimension. I explained this near the top of this thread. Plus, AJB was nice enough to demonstrate how we can arrive at my same conclusion using physics that I have yet to learn. From the big-bang frame of reference, a coordinate system that is always positioned at time zero in the center of the big-bang, we can deduce that we move at the speed of light through the dimension of time. If we choose this coordinate system, we can state that the space we are moving through is stationary or vice-versa. This means that the Lorentz contraction would have collapsed the dimension of time to having no perceivable length. This explains why we are unable to see the objects temporally displaced from our position in time. It also gives us a reason for why it is nearly impossible to displace our position temporally due to the constancy of the speed of light. Plus, if mass-energy is temporally displaced it would move at the same rate as we do through this fourth dimension of space. There is one way to test this theory. If we observe a star that wobbles as if locked into a binary star system and we cannot detect this other star, then based on the wobble of the star to rule out any other cosmic possibilities we can determine if mass-energy is truly displaced temporally. Otherwise, it will either require a consistent theory of quantum gravity or solutions in cosmology that solves the dark matter, energy, and flow problems, to prove or disprove this notion. Even though my knowledge of physics may not be equivelant to yours, you cannot deny the logic in the statements I have made in regards to motion and mathematics. I know that you all do not know me very well and, as such, I must prove myself. When I find some extra time, I will post some of the mathematics that I have derived. I mainly work in game theory, probability and statistics, and finite calculus and numerical analysis as required by the industry for which I have based my career. You are more than welcome to read about it in my profile. On a seperate matter, how often do you get a theory proposed in the Speculation group where there is math to support it and the author provides a way for you to check to see if the second half of his hypothesis, temporally displaced mass-energy, is true or false by observing the motions of stars in the heavens? Edited July 10, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 10, 2011 Author Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) For anyone wondering what started this debate in regards to the inference of motion, I have pasted the hypothesis from the original post below: When we make a measurement of a physical phenomena, we can only do so by taking advantage of an attribute inherent in the phenomena itself. For instance, we use a rod to measure length. The rod has markings that allow us to measure lengths that are within its boundaries. We use a voltmeter to measure electrical potential differences between two points. The voltmeter uses attributes inherent in electricity and magnetism to make its measurements. This leads us to measurements of time as provided by a clock. All clocks use oscillations of known intervals to measure time. This can be demonstrated in the fact that a sun-dial uses the oscillations as provided by the rotation cycle of the Earth, grandfather clocks use pendulums, and light clocks bounce light between two reflective surfaces. There are many more mechanisms that clocks use to measure time, such as oscillations as provided by crystals, but the point is that they are all based on mechanisms that oscillate. Oscillation in itself is motion and, more specifically, it is motion that repeats with a specified frequency. It is because time can only be measured with motion that motion must be inherent in time. The same statements are true for motion through any other spatial dimension. We can use oscillation to measure our speed along the x axis the same way a speedometer uses the oscillations of the vehicle's wheels to measure the speed of the vehicle. But, if the vehicle always had a constant velocity along the x axis, then we could also measure physical processes in the vehicle in relation to the vehicle's x position. However, we have the freedom to change our speed and direction along the x axis, making this pseudo-temporal dimension unordered. The physical nature of time seems to be one where motion is the only attribute inherent in the phenomena and it is restricted to moving forward along the temporal dimension. If time is motion no different than motion in other spatial dimensions, then how can we expect to time travel to a past that only exists as a memory or to a future that will exist as a memory? We would have moved away from this point in time and would have not made it to a point in the future. If time travel was possible, then I would have to currently exist at all points in time from birth to death. This is because if I could time travel, then it would not be possible for me to take the mass-energy of the entire universe with me and arrange it the way it was back then or will be in the future. Plus, this behaviour is not true for any other spatial dimension. I may have existed at location zero on the x axis, but I am no longer at that position. I have moved on and when I go to visit location zero on the x axis, I find that it is not that same as before. There is always something different such as new cars in the parking lot. Furthermore, If all things exist currently at all points in time, then wouldn't the past and future attract gravitationally? Time may not flow linearly but surely we only exist at a given point in time and not simultaneously at all points. From this view I suggest that time travel to a memory of the past or to a memory that will exist in the future is impossible. However, traveling to a point in time that is parallel to ours may reveal a new view of our universe. These temporally displaced universes would move through time at the same rate as we do, except they are ahead or behind us along the temporal dimension. We could fast forward or rewind time in all instances and show that each universe would have its own unique history, etc... But I have not taken GR into account, so I am looking for people to disprove this view or support it and perhaps we all can learn something to the nature of time. Edited July 10, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) If we look at the second half of my hypothesis in regards to temporally displaced mass-energy, we must consider the big bang and the metric expansion of space. The following image from wikipedia inadvertently demonstrates temporally displaced mass-energy: From this view of the universe we can see our own unique history radiating away from time zero of the big bang. The vertical slices in the image above are different points through the fourth dimension, time. We can also view the vertical slices as temporally displaced parallel "universes" all co-moving at the speed of light in a uniform direction through time. These "universes" would just be different views of our single universe. Each universe would have its own unique history because any observer located along the temporal axis could record events using space-time coordinates that would be unique to their view of the universe. We could also show that time should be bi-directional. Even though SR may not perfectly describe the metric of space, we know that it involves functions that specify a rate of change that includes square roots. Mathematically, square roots have two solutions. However, it is customary to choose the solution that satisfies the physical system. If we make a conjecture that the big bang expanded space in a similiar manner that a gamma ray burst, or quasar radiates energy into space along both directions of an arbitrary spatial dimension, then we can interpret the results of the mathematics by introducing positive and negative time as shown by an image I produced to visualize the concept: Edited December 17, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marqq Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 OK, wow... I can't pretend to really understand QM or anything, but I do get what the disagreement is here. Daedalus says movement along the X axis implies motion, because it has a function on the y axis that can be measured. Swansont explains the standing wave thing; well done there, but I think it wasn't quite implicit enough. So the x-axis is time, and we (along with everything else-electrons and standing waves included) are moving (per se) along it at a rate presumed to be constant. Atomic clocks measure a change in state that, as Swansont said, can't be considered motion-- This state-change would be represented by the y-axis, and thus be measurable. The question is, how can something change without movement, and well, the answer is, the way a point in space doesn't move when a sound (or other) wave passes over it. The wave is there, then it's not. In the case of a sound wave, the density has changed, but for subatomic quantum-mechanical thingamajigs, there is no density, there's just existence and non-existence. They phase in and out (ya, QM loses me right about here), without movement in the classical sense. That makes the y axis neither spacial x/y/z, nor time, but rather a 5th dimension to be measured in boolean terms. Nevertheless, I'd have to argue that anything that exists for any amount of time DOES move in relation to something, as there's always something in motion; and yes, the inability to reach absolute zero does mean that atomic clocks will always have some motion to contend with. But the purpose of this thread is not to question motion, but time. Oscillation in itself is motion and, more specifically, it is motion that repeats with a specified frequency. It is because time can only be measured with motion that motion must be inherent in time. The same statements are true for motion through any other spatial dimension. The only issue with these statements is that you use the word 'motion'. Motion Change is inherent in time. I'd even go so far as to say that without change, time would not exist. It'd certainly have no meaning at all, and it could never be measured. I'd go a step further and say that the 'dimension' of time is little more than an emergent property of change in the three spacial dimensions and the fourth--phasing; time cannot be observed without these, which is why its passage seems relative. These 4 dimensions exist for every point in time we can arbitrarily define. But though we define it, observe it and altogether depend on it, time doesn't exist as a stand-alone dimension. Therefore, time-travel is impossible, because the x-axis which measures it is ultimately imaginary. (time is the y axis) Ya, so I started off all humble, then my outstanding arrogance came out....better disclaim: I'm a laymen college dropout with very little scientific training who's done only several hours of online research on the topics of GR, QM, and whatever else sparked my interest while watching the science channel at 4 in the morning. So if I'm wrong about something, CALL ME ON IT! I do hope I at least helped with your disagreements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 11, 2011 Author Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) So if I'm wrong about something, CALL ME ON IT! I do hope I at least helped with your disagreements. My original point can be summarized as follows: When we measure motion, we are actually making a statement about a rate of change in the measurement of distance travelled. For example, to state that we are traveling at 100 m/s, is to declare that one hundred meters will be measured for each second of time measured. This defines a relationship between distance and time in terms of speed. It is a relationship that is expressed as the physical measurement of the distance traveled within an interval of oscillation of known length as provided by a clock. This leads us to the conclusion, that motion in terms of velocity or acceleration, is actually a statement of directional motion compared to a rotational or cyclic motion. This allows us to mathematically redefine motion in terms of frequency times distance traveled per unit cycle, [math]f \times m / cycles[/math], which is exactly what we are doing when we measure motion using clocks. This can be demonstrated using dimensional analysis as follows: [math]v = \frac{m}{s}=f \times \frac{m}{cycles}[/math] [math]f = \frac{cycles}{s}[/math] [math] \frac{m}{s}=f \times \frac{m}{cycles}=\frac{cycles}{s} \times \frac{m}{cycles}=\frac{m}{s}[/math] [math]time=s=\frac{cycles}{f}[/math] Where [math]v[/math] is velocity, [math]cycles[/math] is the number of oscillations, [math]f[/math] is the frequency of the oscillation, [math]m[/math] is meters, and [math]s[/math] is seconds. Before we can interpret our motion through time as having a velocity, we must understand what it means to have velocity. This is because we measure our motion through space with respect to our motion through time. Therefore, when we try to measure our velocity through the temporal dimension we can only obtain a normalized velocity of one. This is a result of how we measure speed as a change in space over a change in time and, according to relativity, is the same as measuring a change in space over a change in fourth dimensional space. We could use any dimensional axis as a replacement for time. The only difference is that we have the ability to change our speed and direction in the other spatial dimensions, creating consistency issues with this pseudo-temporal dimension. This leads us to the conclusion that, even though motion through time is the same as motion through space, we cannot measure our speed through time in the same manner that we do for space as a result of [math]dt / dt[/math]. This is why we are forced to measure motion through time using constant oscillations of known intervals. Oscillation allows us to normalize our measurements of motion through time. The fact that we measure time in seconds is irrelevant because this unit of measurement is just an interval of oscillation that we have created to measure the passage of time. A second could have lasted for any length of duration. However, it is the relationships imposed on these measurements which are important as they define the mechanics that describe the universe. The mathematics I posted near the beginning of this thread supports this notion of time as demonstrated in the attached image from my post above yours: One way to view time as motion through the fourth dimension would be as follows: We will begin at a position located at time zero at the center of the big bang. This frame of reference will remain at time zero at the center of the big bang, observing the expansion of the universe from this view. Let there be a light clock located at this frame of reference and let us synchronize this light clock in accordance to the definitions in special relativity. We shall denote the time it takes for light to travel from point A to point B and back to point A in this frame of reference as [math]\Delta t_{b}[/math]. The subscript [math]b[/math] denotes the big bang reference. According to SR the light clock in this frame of reference would measure time according to: [math]\Delta t_{b} = \frac{2L}{c}[/math] where [math]L=|AB|[/math] If time was nothing more than motion, then the observer in this reference frame would infer motion through time by observing the expansion of the big bang. So their light clock would still be able to bounce light between two reflective surfaces because, even though they are not moving with the expansion of the big bang, motion would still be possible. Now let us consider the motion of an identical light clock that is radiating outward from the big bang, through the fourth dimension, relative to the big bang frame of reference. We shall denote the time observed by this clock as [math]\Delta t_{w}[/math]. The subscript [math]w[/math] denotes the spatial axis of time. The use of [math]w[/math] to label the time axis is to avoid confusion with the time variable [math]t[/math]. This frame of reference is called the time-normal frame as it defines a frame of reference that is only moving through the fourth dimension, time, away from the big bang. This is normally called the lab frame of reference. It is important to note that in all frames of reference, an observer will see their light clock no differently than the observer at the big bang frame of reference. The equations of relativity predict how one observer will view the other and vice-versa. This means that the observer in the big bang frame of reference will not see the path of the light from the light clock in motion relative to their position as a straight up and down path. The same is true for the observer in motion as they will see the light from the light clock positioned at the big bang frame of reference the same way. The path that is observed is that of a triangle instead of one that is straight up and down. Because Einstein proved the constancy of the speed of light, the difference in time measured as observed from each frame of reference is: [math]\Delta t_{n} = \frac{2N}{c}[/math] where [math]N=\sqrt{(\frac{V_{w} \times \Delta t_{n}}{2})^{2}+L^{2}}[/math] [math]V_{w}[/math] is the velocity through the fourth dimension and [math]L=|AB|[/math] Finally, we shall place another identical light clock that is in relative motion with the clock in the time-normal frame of reference, except these two clocks share the same position, speed, and direction through the temporal dimension. Therefore, the only relative motion between them is through spatial dimensions that are perpendicular to their forward motion through time. This means that both clocks have a relative velocity of zero along the temporal dimension and a non-zero relative velocity along the [math]x, y[/math] and [math]z[/math] axis of space. We shall denote time in this frame of reference as [math]\Delta t_{r}[/math]. The subscript [math]r[/math] denotes the time-relative frame of reference. We shall derive the equation for time dilation for this frame of reference in respect to the big bang frame of reference. This allows us to derive the following relationship: [math]\Delta t_{r} = \frac{2R}{c}[/math] where [math]R=\sqrt{(\frac{V_{w} \times \Delta t_{r}}{2})^{2}+(\frac{V_{r} \times \Delta t_{r}}{2})^{2}+L^{2}}[/math] [math]V_{w}[/math] is the velocity through the fourth dimension, [math]V_{r}[/math] is the velocity through all other spatial dimensions, and [math]L=|AB|[/math] Now that we have derived the equations for both frames of reference that are moving away from the big bang, we can relate them back to the big bang frame of reference according to the following: Solving for [math]\Delta t_{n}[/math] in the time-normal frame of reference we get: [math]\Delta t_{n} = \frac{2L/c}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{b}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math] Solving for [math]\Delta t_{r}[/math] in the time-relative frame of reference we get: [math]\Delta t_{r} = \frac{2L/c}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{b}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math] We can see that from the above relationships that the time-normal frame of reference is related to the time-relative frame of reference as follows: [math]\Delta t_{r} \sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}=\Delta t_{n} \sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}[/math] This allows us to derive the following relationship between the time-normal frame of reference and the time-relative frame of reference: [math]\Delta t_{r} =\Delta t_{n} \frac{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{n}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}-V_{w}^{2}}}} [/math] This result makes sense because everything has a relative temporal velocity of zero: [math]\Delta t_{r}=\frac{\Delta t_{n}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}-0^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{n}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math] But, [math]V_{w}[/math] becomes apparent from the big bang frame of reference such that: [math]V_{w}=\frac{\sqrt{c^{2}(\Delta t_{n}^{2}-\Delta t_{r}^{2})+\Delta t_{r}^{2}\times V_{r}^{2}}}{\sqrt{\Delta t_{n}^{2}-\Delta t_{r}^{2}}}=\sqrt{c^{2}+\frac{\Delta t_{r}^{2}\times V_{r}^{2}}{\Delta t_{n}^{2}-\Delta t_{r}^{2}}}[/math] Interpreting this result seems to reveal that we move at a velocity other than the speed of light through the dimension of time. This is due to the relative velocity [math]V_{r}[/math] through the other spatial dimensions. However, when we place ourselves in the big bang frame of reference, we realize that [math]V_{r}=0[/math]. This is because all observers will place themselves in the time-normal frame of reference with all other bodies being time-relative in respect to their position. Therefore, all observers have zero relative velocity. [math]V_{w}=\sqrt{c^{2}+\frac{\Delta t_{r}^{2}\times 0^{2}}{\Delta t_{n}^{2}-\Delta t_{r}^{2}}}=\sqrt{c^{2}}=c[/math] So if we can deduce through mathematics that time is motion through the fourth dimension at the speed of light, shouldn't my notions about time travel be true in regards to the impossibility of traveling to a time that exists as a memory of the past or will exist as a memory in the future? We can see from the attached image that the observers, at [math]\tau_{1}[/math] and [math]\tau_{2}[/math], would radiate away from the big bang frame of reference at the speed of light frozen in place along the temporal segment. We can show that the space-time vectors, with the head at each observer's position and the tail remaining at the center of the singularity at time zero, is equal in magnitude. This means that no matter how fast each observer moves in directions perpendicular to the axis of time, each observer will remain "radially" frozen along the temporal segment radiating outward from the big bang frame of reference at the speed of light, with a relative temporal velocity of zero with respect to each others frame of reference as shown by the mathematics. The result of which does not refute the possibility of temporally displaced mass-energy. This is because the magnitude of the space-time vectors as defined from the big bang frame of reference to the observer's frame of reference, can be used to determine which "universe" the observer is located in. Furthermore, because I related all three frames of references to each other we can use the following relationship to show that even though both observers experience time differently, they are moving through time equally from the big bang frame of reference. Solving for [math]\Delta t_{n}[/math] in the time-normal frame of reference we get: [math]\Delta t_{n} = \frac{2L/c}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{b}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math] Solving for [math]\Delta t_{r}[/math] in the time-relative frame of reference we get: [math]\Delta t_{r} = \frac{2L/c}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=\frac{\Delta t_{b}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math] We can see that from the above relationships that the time-normal frame of reference is related to the time-relative frame of reference as follows: [math]\Delta t_{r} \sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{V_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}}}=\Delta t_{n} \sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}[/math] From the big bang frame of reference, both observers place themselves in the time-normal frame of reference placing the other in the time-relative frame of reference. So from the big bang frame of reference both observers have a zero relative velocity, [math]V_{r}=0[/math], and experience the time equally: [math]\Delta t_{b} \sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}-\frac{0^{2}}{c^{2}}}=\Delta t_{b} \sqrt{1-\frac{V_{w}^{2}}{c^{2}}}[/math] However, I do not imply that this proves that mass-energy is temporally displaced. Therefore, I have provided science with a way to test this hypothesis: There is one way to test this theory. If we observe a star that wobbles as if locked into a binary star system and we cannot detect this other star, then based on the wobble of the star to rule out any other cosmic possibilities, we can determine if mass-energy is truly displaced temporally. Have I not followed the scientific method? Four essential elements[34][35][36] of a scientific method[37] are iterations,[38][39] recursions,[40] interleavings, or orderings of the following: Characterizations (observations,[41] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry) Hypotheses[42][43] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[44] Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[45] from the hypothesis or theory) Experiments[46] (tests of all of the above) I base my claims on existing characterizations of the subject matter being discussed as SR and GR deals with space and time. I stated a hypotheses about a theoretical notion to the nature of time. I derived mathematics from which lead to a prediction which can prove the hypotheses true or false. And, I have submitted my theory for peer review so that scientists, astronomers, and cosmologists can conduct experiements based on my predictions. Edited July 11, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 12, 2011 Author Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Considering that my theory deals with time from the point of view of SR / GR, that it is improper to compare such theory to QM when the theory does not make any assertions to QM. To this date no one person has proved a link between SR / GR and QM that would allow us to make such assertions. Furthermore, the mathematics complements the framework as defined in SR and does not conflict with relativity in any way. Unless the mathematics or the logic can be proven wrong, I recommend that we elevate this speculation to the status of being a valid scientific theory for which will be the basis for the "Principle of Temporal Uniformity". This theory will suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the temporal uniformity of rigid bodies as pertaining to temporal displacement which would result in altering the past in any way that would affect the present or allow the transmission of information from either the future or past into the present. The notion of temporal displacement in regards to being able to travel forwards or backwards through time to alter the present is impossible as the view here developed will not allow one to travel through time in such a way that would allow them to view or interact with the same matter and energy from their original point in time. It shows that the notion of being able to travel to any time, that only exists as a memory of the past, or will exist as a memory in the future, is impossible. I must also ask you to consider the attached image I provided earlier. This view of the universe aligns itself with all aspects of mathematical spaces. We can see that the image demonstrates a relationship between three dimensional space to a fourth dimensional time axis. The birth of our universe is centered at the origin of the coordinate system and there is an imaginary psudeo-fifth dimensional axis that goes through the positions of the closed universe singularities due to space-time curvature. The true nature of mathematics is one of recursion and not that of heuristic shortcuts which simplify the equations. We cannot construct a universe from math without including all aspects of which is entailed in mathematics. This can be logically deduced as follows: "Mathematics cannot exist without the universe and the universe cannot exist without mathematics. Therefore the universe gave rise to mathematics which in turn gave rise to the universe. In short, the proof comes from the fact that if it was impossible to do mathematics in a universe no different than ours, then this universe would exist as a paradox unto itself because the beings that inhabit it would still be able to group, identify, count and measure objects that exist in their universe. If the true laws of physics were known by these beings, then they would be able to deduce the existence of other universes and therefore these other universes are observable even if they are void of life. This is a complicated way of saying that every mathematical property and relationship must have existed at time zero or before the birth and expansion of our universe and because life exists in our universe, then the laws that govern life also existed at the creation of the universe. Who am I to say what form this life took before my universe was created when I do not know the mathematics which govern it? The only truth I can derive is that the universe is so perfectly balanced that it is also unbalanced." When you begin to consider all the possible options, whether you believe in a big bang that was created as M theory proposes or any other theory, you have to consider black holes as the source for the big bang. I am working on the mathematics that shows the shape of the universe from the point of view of a spherical shaped singularity, based on the Schwarzschild radius, that exploded along an arbitrary spatial dimension simliar to gamma ray burts, quasars, and pulsars. This arbitrary spatial dimension is the axis of space we call time and the outer edge of the sphere to the center represents the length of the temporal segment. I have already worked out the mathematics that shows the field lines of each layer radiating away from the singularity. Oddly enough this idea is based on mathematics that I have been developing that shows the field lines that light from an image form to reach an observer. I've transfered this concept to the shape of a sphere where we consider the inverse of the mathematics as shown in the image I have attached to this post and allows for the cosmological constant to govern the expansion. The green vectors are all of equal length, the blue lines represent the photon fields, and the purple arcs represent the light we see instantaneously. The triangle represents the observer's field of view. The photon fields extend from negative infinity to positive infinity and have a horizontal asymptotic relationship with the dimension along the width of the screen, or any other geometrical shape that emits / reflects an image. Once I am done, I should have a good estimate for the geometry of space because the photon field lines would represent the space we exist in and I can substitute any geometrical shape in place of the singularity. I will post the mathematics once I am done. The following parametric equation is incomplete but does allow us to produce the image below: [math]x_{\{t,u\}}=t-(I_{y}-u) \frac{t}{\sqrt{t^{2}+I_{y}^{2}}}[/math] [math]y_{\{t,u\}}=I_{y}-(I_{y}-u) \frac{I_{y}}{\sqrt{t^{2}+I_{y}^{2}}}[/math] The variables [math]t[/math] and [math]u[/math] are the parameterized inputs, [math]I_{y}[/math] is the screen's [math]y[/math] position with the [math]x[/math] position being located at zero, and the observer is at the origin. Edited December 17, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Dimensional Collapse A Thought Experiment on Obtaining Light Speed When dealing with the construct of the universe it is necessary to use the microscope of the mind to gain insight into the problem at hand. We will take a journey on a spaceship that is designed to test how light speed affects our vision. Our scientists have invented a device that, for the purpose of this discussion, allows two astronauts to defy relativity and reach the speed of light. Taking into account the dangerous nature of this mission, the two astronauts prepare their estates, take care of any last minute business, and say their good byes to their friends and family. Because according to relativity, if the anti-relativity device fails, they could end up being crushed into a singularity as a result of having infinite mass. The day finally arrives and the two astronauts pilot the spaceship to the location where the test is to begin. After some time of acceleration along their flight path, the two astronauts finally obtain light speed. At the point in time they obtained light speed, both astronauts looked at the other in anticipation of celebrating the moment. It is at this moment, the anti-relativity device malfunctions. For sake of discussion, we will not be so cruel as to crush our astronauts into a singularity by observing the effects of relativity. However, the view has changed entirely for our astronauts. According to special relativity it takes an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light. We must also conclude that the reverse is true and, unless the anti-relativity device begins to function properly, our astronauts are now forever trapped going the speed of light in the direction they are traveling. We must also conclude that all motion, in the direction the spaceship is traveling, has been restricted to a plane perpendicular to the direction of forward motion. This is because special relativity states that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. So our astronauts can only move in the direction of up, down, left, or right. All forward and backward motion would be impossible and because our astronauts were looking at each other, they would also notice that each appear to the other as a vertical strip. This is because we have two eyes and since our astronauts are traveling at the speed of light, they can only see light perpendicular to the direction they are moving. Since the brain combines the images from our eyes to form a single image with the perception of depth, our astronauts would really see each other as a single vertical strip. For all intents and purposes, both astronauts actually appear to be two dimensional in how they view each other and how they are restricted to movement along a two-dimensional plane. They are experiencing dimensional collapse in the direction of motion and because of the definitions in relativity, they also appear two dimensional to observers on Earth. The consequence of dimensional collapse is a reality of the Lorentz contraction and combined with the constancy of the speed of light, we can explain how we experience time. Even if the astronauts could move around freely, they would not be able to see the light from anything behind them in the direction of motion. And if everything else in the universe was also moving at the speed of light parallel to and in the direction of their motion, they would not be able to see the light from anything in front of them. Due to dimensional collapse from the Lorentz contraction, they would be restricted to only being able to view the universe along dimensions that are perpendicular to their motion. The speed of light accounts for why we cannot see objects in the future or past, and the Lorentz contraction collapses the dimension of time to where it is no longer perceived to have any length and restricts us by no longer allowing us to traverse forward or backward in the direction of motion. This means that the future and past would be nothing more than physical points along the spatial dimension of time where all observable phenomena co-exists at a definite point along with all other non-observable phenomena existing at different points along the temporal dimension, all traveling with uniform direction at the speed of light. If we apply the same scenario as explained above to a four dimensional space where all matter and energy are co-moving at the speed of light along a spatial dimension, such as the dimensional axis the astronauts are traversing, then we can account for having three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Since the astronauts are now traveling at the speed of light through four-dimensional space, the temporal axis collapses and we are left with three observable spatial dimensions. This is logical because mathematics defines that all spatial dimensions share a common origin point and must be perpendicular to each other regardless of number. The previous statement only holds for Euclidean space as it is not referring to projected or transformed spaces. Since the speed of light is constant, both astronauts would forever be at rest with each other along the temporal axis and could only perceive their forward motion through time by observing motions through dimensions perpendicular to the temporal axis. And because they would no longer be able to observe objects in front of them or behind them, they would no longer be able to measure their forward velocity in the traditional sense as they would not have a reference point to measure their motion against along the collapsed temporal dimension. If for some reason both our astronauts developed amnesia and could not remember their initial velocity, they would have to derive a new way to measure their forward motion as they can no longer physically move or see along the dimensional axis they are traversing at the speed of light. This is identical to how we experience time, as a perceived forward motion, with no reference to the velocity, distance traveled, or physical size along the temporal axis, while existing in three-dimensional space. Thus we are restricted to only being able to see and interact with the objects that co-exist with us at our point in time. The only way we could measure our forward motion through time, is by using a device with a mechanism that can oscillate with intervals of known length along the dimensions perpendicular to the forward motion. If the astronauts recovered from their amnesia, they could remember that they are traveling at the speed of light. And even though they can no longer perceive the dimension in the direction of their forward motion, they could use an oscillator of specified interval, along with the rediscovered knowledge of their velocity, and calculate the distance they traveled. We can also deduce why our space is nearly flat. This is because if the entirety of space is curved, as shown in the image from an earlier post visualizing the big bang, then light would travel along this larger curvature of space. We can only percieve this large curvature as straight lines due to the nature of light. The gravitational lensing from super massive bodies that bends light and show us that space is curved, warps the existing topology of this larger curvature comprising the entirety of space allowing us to see that space is warped. But this does not mean that we should be able to look out through the entirety of space and see this larger curvature. Another way to think about this is from the stanpoint of space being shaped as a sphere. Since light must follow the shape of space and we use light to measure lines, then we would be able to see galaxies and stars on the other side of this sphere. If space didn't expand faster than the speed of light, we would eventually and "theoretically" be able to see the entire history of Earth from start to end (as long as we weren't on the planet when it ended : ) This shows how the universe deals with infinity using a finite amount of space and mass-energy. Law of Balance We can also argue that the primary law of the universe is balance in the form of opposition. Even though we cannot completely prove assumptions based on the law of balance, we can still determine if our thought process is balanced. From this I can state, "The opposite of dimensional axes where I have the freedom to change my speed and direction and where I can perceive size in the form of width, height and length, is a single dimensional axis of space where I do not have the freedom to change speed or direction and where I cannot perceive any physical length along the restriced axis. Therefore, space and time are balanced through opposition. Space gives rise to time and time gives rise to space. They are one and the same no different than how up is the same as down. I understand that this view is more a philosophical one, but the logic can also be applied to science and religion. Science and religion are both philosophies which are opposite in nature. Science demands belief by evidence and religion demands belief by faith. Therefore science and religion are balanced through opposition. Religion gives rise to science which in turn gives rise to religion. But even if the law of balance cannot directly prove a statement, we can show that it holds true for all things. This can be demonstrated in the fact that if there was no up, there would be no down. If there was no religion, a philosophy where belief is governed by faith, then how could science exist? The fact that science demands belief based on evidence shows that its opposite, belief based on faith, must also exist. Because, we could not define one without the other. This is why the law of balance is so important. It provides us with a way to do consistency checks on our logical pathways no different than that of a computer. Swansont could use the law of balance to argue that motionless physics, QM, is balanced by opposition in relation to classical physics where motion is realized. He would be partially correct in that definition. But this is also where balance can be misinterpreted by thinking in opposites and explains why we cannot use it for the basis of a proof. Physics is based on mathematics and from this fact it would be better to say, "Mathematical space, being a set of motionless points, is opposite in nature from motion that moves through these points in space. Therefore, space and motion are balanced by opposition and are one and the same. Space gives rise to motion which in turn gives rise to space. You cannot have one without the other. This may not seem logical to most people. But the truth is that we move through space because all points in space have distance between them. You may try to argue that space can exist without motion but then how could you explain the big bang from the standpoint of a singularity? It is a dimensionless point. There are no other points one could move to and if motion did not exist, there would be no distance between the points in any metric space. Motion can only exist if there are distances between points, so a space that has distance between points implies motion because we now have a distance to move through. It is the same paradox relating to, "What came first? The chicken or the egg?". The only truth is that the chicken and the egg are opposite in nature. Therefore the egg gave rise to the chicken which in turn gave rise to the egg. You can't have one without the other. We call the science the explains how the egg derived the chicken, evolution, and the science of biology explains how the chicken derives an egg. We can infer that if there exists opposites that must simultaneously exist, such as up and down, then there are also opposites that are not simultaneous (one must come before the other). But you still cannot have one without the other. This is what I meant by stating that [math]f(x)[/math] implies motion along the [math]x[/math] or [math]y[/math] axis. This explains "why" the space in our universe is actually expanding. Balance is a binary mathematical relationship that stores information about the existence of any and all things and It would be impossible to store any type of information if the law of balance did not exist or hold true. This is as stated before, without up you cannot have down. The fact that up and down does exist, adds an informational bit to the structure of the universe. But it does not tell us "how" a physical system works or allow us to make statements about the accuracy and precision of the measurements we can make within the physical system. You cannot have physical space with distances between points without motion extending these points, and according to Swansont, QM works without motion in regards to atomic clocks. I asked him to remove all "motion" from the physics for which QM is based on and show that we can still have QM. Even though he may be completely 100% correct in his definitions for QM, if we removed all physical motion, even time, then QM would not exist. Therefore this idea of QM requiring no motion at all to measure time, is not balanced. Edited July 13, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Because of the law of balance, I believe that it may be true that length cannot by reduced to zero as a result of a mathematical tranformation of actual physical space. There must always exist some distance in between any two points. Anyone who has taken calculus knows this because of having to calculate integrals using the Riemann sum. Applying the same concept to deriving points in space, shows that there will always exist some distance in between any two infinitesimal points. The universe implements this abstract mathematical concept, of a physical distance always existing between two points, using mechanics that drive the cosmological constant. This would explain the anti-gravitational effects we observe for these things. This is why I posed the question here on this site, "Quantization of Length? Heresy or Merit?". These questions are important because they affect the underlying space-time metric. The Lorentz transformation affects all aspects from length contraction to time dilation. If we know that the current metric that we use does not properly describe all apsects of physical space, then we must consider such questions and hypotheses that affect this attribute to space-time. Combining all of my proposed ideas allows us to redefine gamma as: [math]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_{r}^{2}}{c^{2}-v_{w}^{2}}(1-l^{2})}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{(v_{r} + v_{r} l)(v_{r} - v_{r} l)}{(c + v_{w})(c - v_{w})}}}[/math] Where [math]v_{r}[/math] is the relative velocity perpendicular to the temporal axis, [math]v_{w}[/math] is the temporal velocity relative to time zero at the center of the big bang (equals zero with respect to the time-normal and time-relative frames of reference), [math]l[/math] is the length quantization number (which could actually be zero), and [math]c[/math] is the speed of light. Edited July 13, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Swansont, I do realize and respect the arguments that you have made in regards to QM and time. I appreciate you taking time to debate the topic. I hope we all have a little better understanding of what time may be. The question is definitely not answered with 100% certainty. But if we do discover temporally displaced mass-energy, then this will have huge implications. A huge part of my theory uses Bose-Einstein condensates. Check out this discovery made by physicist at the University of Bonn in Germany. I hypothesize that the singularity at the heart of every black hole is a super-photon or Bose-Einstein condensate of mass-energy in some form. Since we know that light is related to electron - positron pairs at high energies, then it could be possible that the singularity is actually a matter Bose-Einstein condensate associated with an anti-matter Bose-Einstein condensate. Once black holes throughout the entire universe consume all of the mass and energy, space collapses and causes all of the black holes from the center of galaxies to come back together at time zero at the center of the big bang. This falls in line with the principles of temporal uniformity because of the hypothetical Einstein Rosen bridges, or wormholes that may exist inside supermassive black holes linking two or more points in three-dimensional space or through the [math]w[/math] axis of space-time. The warping of space due to all of this mass-energy would cause these two condensates, at the center of the singularity, to collapse into each other resulting in another big bang. The condensates could form in a similiar manner as shown in the experiment that the physicists at Bonn have conducted. Except the massive pressure induced by the collapsed space inside the singularity provides the cooling effect as it restricts the motion of particles or waves allowing for the condensates to form. However, this third part of my theory is purely speculative. But, it does allow us to derive a theory of quantum gravity that is based on GR, QM, and temporal uniformity. Once I have created such model, I will be able to determine the validity of these extended claims unless the hypotheses I made towards dark-matter is observed in star wobbles, giving validation through observation. Considering the consequences of this view, it may be possible that Hawking radiation does not evaporate supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies. The virtual anti-particles caught in the event horizon that fall in would either be absorbed by the anti-matter condensate, or if it collided with the matter condensate it would just be converted back to light and be split up between both matter and anti-matter condensates where the process repeated in a chain reaction until this new mass-energy was distributed equally. This would work identically for the virtual matter particles. We could also further hypothesize that any form of mass-energy transforms into a super-photon that splits into matter / anti-matter pairs due to the acceleration from falling towards the singularity. This would allow both matter and anti-matter condensates at the heart of the singularity to always be balanced and it provides an explanation for the cause of the big bang. Therefore, infinity is expressed through recursion in cycles of big bangs and the finite quantity of space-time and mass-energy is conserved. Thus my general theory of temporal uniformity pretty much relates all things that exist in the abstraction of mathematics to the reality of our concrete physical universe and even though it may be wrong, it appears to be balanced. Since no one has pointed out why it is incorrect or proved it wrong, then my claims stand. I would be happy to retract my claims in light of other truths. It does not mean that I would abandon the theory altogether. It just means that I could align my thought process towards the facts and derive new hypotheses accordingly. I make this conjecture towards supermassive black holes because the current accepted theories tell us micro black holes will evaporate. However, we cannot ignore the implications of what it would mean if my view is correct and that we cannot destroy a singularity once it has been created. This means that the LHC could actually end life on Earth due to micro black hole creation which may not actually evaporate. Not to be superstitious but 2012 is next year and the LHC keeps increasing the levels of energy used in collisions. However, the scientist predict that it will be 2014 before the LHC runs at full power and current theories support black hole evaporation. I just want to end with this; "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Carl Sagan. I have actually constructed a device that is very extraordinary and it is not an anti-gravity device or anything as such. But once the patents go through, I can reveal what it actually is and it is quite remarkable. I believe it embodies everything I have debated to be true and the evidence that it does exist is hard to deny. Edited July 13, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Ok I couldn't resist. I will give you guys a hint. I better not . Edited July 14, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted August 2, 2011 Author Share Posted August 2, 2011 I have been extremely busy getting ready to go back to OU this fall. I do not have internet at the moment and am using a friends computer to post this message. I have more of the mathematics worked out and I will post the results as soon as I get moved into my new apartment. Everything has been done with Mathematica and I will post the equations and images of the plots so that you all can reproduce my results. I must say that you guys are in for a real treat : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) I agree Daedalus, Time is motion but maybe more accurately could be described as "change." Since motion can be solely relative motion, and fluctuating energy levels certainly represent change. I also agree with you that traveling backward in time is impossible based upon our concept of time. You cannot undo what has already happened. But that's why we are in the speculation forum because there are other explanations of time depending on which field of physics you are discussing. That's why everyone does not agree. There are a number of ideas concerning what the essence of time is, even though in truth the best definitions might simply be an interval of motion or change. Edited August 5, 2011 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted August 5, 2011 Share Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) Time can be considered as motion through a spatial dimension no different than the other three observable spatial dimensions. That is also my understanding. I agree 100% "speed of time" is not a clear concept, as you exposed thoroughly, because you obtain a speed of 1 sec/sec, which means nothing. If you want to get something meaningful, you must invent the reverse of speed (call it "deeps") where "deeps" of time is expressed in seconds/meters. Then you obtain a meaningful concept where: for any spend second you must have traveled a certain amount of space. That is obliged motion, as observed. ----------------------------------- and if you consider that this motion must take place in the remaing 3 dimensions alltogether, you obtain scaling, either in expansion or contraction. That is my pet theory. Edited August 5, 2011 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted August 8, 2011 Author Share Posted August 8, 2011 (edited) "speed of time" is not a clear concept, as you exposed thoroughly, because you obtain a speed of 1 sec/sec, which means nothing. If you want to get something meaningful, you must invent the reverse of speed (call it "deeps") where "deeps" of time is expressed in seconds/meters. Then you obtain a meaningful concept where: for any spend second you must have traveled a certain amount of space. When you consider that motion can be defined as frequency times meters per cycles, or: [math]f \frac{m}{cycles}[/math] We can clearly define the mechanics of time as a statement of the total distance traveled divided by the distance traveled within an interval of oscillation where frequency is the time conversion factor and cycles represent our measurement or unit of time. Let's say that we traveled 3 meters within one interval of oscillation as provided by a pendulum. The pendulum is not tuned to oscillate within an interval of a second and therefore each oscillation is a measurement of time of its own temporal unit as provided by the pendulum. We can use a conversion factor, frequency, to convert the cycles of the pendulum to seconds, but this is not as important as the distance traveled within the interval of oscillation. If our speed remained constant, and we lost our pendulum, then we could divide the distance traveled as stated by our odometer, with the fact that we travel 3 meters within the interval of oscillation and derive the time, in units of the pendulum's cycle. 300 meters divided by 3 meters / cycle equals 100 cycles of the pendulum. If the frequency of the pendulum was tuned so that one cycle equals one second, or frequency equals one, then a total of 100 seconds would have passed for the 300 meters we traversed. In essence, any measurement of time is actually a statement of the total distance traveled divided by the distance traveled within an interval of oscillation. Since we know from the equations of relativity and that of temporal uniformity, that we move through the fourth dimension of space at the speed of light, then we can use an oscillator and calculate the distance traveled through this fourth spatial dimension. The same principles work for all other observable spatial dimensions as stated previously and as shown in the above example using the pendulum. The equations and plots that I will be posting in a week or two, clearly demonstrate these principles. I have successfully derived time dilation in accordance to the path that light from a light clock traverses across an expanding four dimensional sphere. I have checked my new equations against the equations for time dilation in special relativity. My equations produce near identical results and converge to the equations of relativity as our distance through the fourth dimension, or time, approaches infinity. This is a result of the diminishing curvature of a sphere or circle as it gets larger and larger. The equations also produced something that was unexpected, a singularity that spirals towards time zero of the big bang. This is a result of light racing around an extremely small sphere that has just started to expand. As time progresses, the light can no longer complete the journey around this expanding sphere due to the size of the sphere itself. This results in the light path tapering off from a spiral to progressing in straight lines away from the singularity as the universe expanded. Also, I have calculated the maximum viewing angle, based on the speed of light, that we can see across this expanding sphere. This results in our space as being an isolated three dimensional sphere that is expanding away from the Big Bang at the speed of light. Granted, I have not considered any other physical forces or constants except that of the speed of light. However, I will make a conjecture that this spiraling singularity should form a ring singularity once these forces are added into the equations and QM affects are considered. Also, one must consider Occam's razor which suggests that we should tend towards simpler theories which provide explanations regarding the subject matter at hand. This does not imply that my theory of temporal uniformity is correct, but instead shows that we should consider temporal uniformity because it provides simple explanations for all phenomena of time which is based on the accepted theory of relativity. Edited August 9, 2011 by Daedalus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 ! Moderator Note Title of this discussion was changed to avoid confusion and due to OP's request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share Posted August 9, 2011 Thank you for changing the thread title MooeyPoo. I just didn't want this thread to be confused with the "time" poll thread or its author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted September 11, 2011 Author Share Posted September 11, 2011 Sorry I haven't been active in a long time. I have everything ready to post but I cannot find a site that will host the images so that I can link them directly to my posts. If someone knows of a good site that will allow me to upload the images so that I can link them here, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will have to wrap everything up in a PDF file and upload it to Google Docs so that I can provide a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted September 12, 2011 Share Posted September 12, 2011 (edited) When we make a measurement of a physical phenomena, we can only do so by taking advantage of an attribute inherent in the phenomena itself. For instance, we use a rod to measure length. The rod has markings that allow us to measure lengths that are within its boundaries. We use a voltmeter to measure electrical potential differences between two points. The voltmeter uses attributes inherent in electricity and magnetism to make its measurements. This leads us to measurements of time as provided by a clock. All clocks use oscillations of known intervals to measure time. This can be demonstrated in the fact that a sun-dial uses the oscillations as provided by the rotation cycle of the Earth, grandfather clocks use pendulums, and light clocks bounce light between two reflective surfaces. There are many more mechanisms that clocks use to measure time, such as oscillations as provided by crystals, but the point is that they are all based on mechanisms that oscillate. Oscillation in itself is motion and, more specifically, it is motion that repeats with a specified frequency. It is because time can only be measured with motion that motion must be inherent in time. The same statements are true for motion through any other spatial dimension. We can use oscillation to measure our speed along the x axis the same way a speedometer uses the oscillations of the vehicle's wheels to measure the speed of the vehicle. But, if the vehicle always had a constant velocity along the x axis, then we could also measure physical processes in the vehicle in relation to the vehicle's x position. However, we have the freedom to change our speed and direction along the x axis, making this pseudo-temporal dimension unordered. The physical nature of time seems to be one where motion is the only attribute inherent in the phenomena and it is restricted to moving forward along the temporal dimension. If time is motion no different than motion in other spatial dimensions, then how can we expect to time travel to a past that only exists as a memory or to a future that will exist as a memory? We would have moved away from this point in time and would have not made it to a point in the future. If time travel was possible, then I would have to currently exist at all points in time from birth to death. This is because if I could time travel, then it would not be possible for me to take the mass-energy of the entire universe with me and arrange it the way it was back then or will be in the future. Plus, this behaviour is not true for any other spatial dimension. I may have existed at location zero on the x axis, but I am no longer at that position. I have moved on and when I go to visit location zero on the x axis, I find that it is not that same as before. There is always something different such as new cars in the parking lot. Furthermore, If all things exist currently at all points in time, then wouldn't the past and future attract gravitationally? Time may not flow linearly but surely we only exist at a given point in time and not simultaneously at all points. From this view I suggest that time travel to a memory of the past or to a memory that will exist in the future is impossible. However, traveling to a point in time that is parallel to ours may reveal a new view of our universe. These temporally displaced universes would move through time at the same rate as we do, except they are ahead or behind us along the temporal dimension. We could fast forward or rewind time in all instances and show that each universe would have its own unique history, etc... But I have not taken GR into account, so I am looking for people to disprove this view or support it and perhaps we all can learn something to the nature of time. Yes, I agree. Time is one of the simplest of concepts but motion is not its essence, just one of the most important factors of it. I think the simplest single word to define time is change. A point in time is not time itself, it is just a single time frame. Time itself might best be considered an interval of change(s). Although I believe everything in reality is relatively simple, many believe the opposite: that much of reality is extremely complicated and beyond the comprehension of humans, ever. Some theorists believe reality is very complicated with multi-verses, many extra dimensions, worm holes, etc. and believe that time is also complicated enough to allow the possibility of time travel. Occam's Razor may not always be the best indicator concerning the mechanics of the universe, but it often provides wise guidance concerning better directions to look, as you seem to suggest. Edited September 12, 2011 by pantheory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 Yes, I agree. Time is one of the simplest of concepts but motion is not its essence, just one of the most important factors of it. I think the simplest single word to define time is change. A point in time is not time itself, it is just a single time frame. Time itself might best be considered an interval of change(s). Although I believe everything in reality is relatively simple, many believe the opposite: that much of reality is extremely complicated and beyond the comprehension of humans, ever. Some theorists believe reality is very complicated with multi-verses, many extra dimensions, worm holes, etc. and believe that time is also complicated enough to allow the possibility of time travel. Occam's Razor may not always be the best indicator concerning the mechanics of the universe, but it often provides wise guidance concerning better directions to look, as you seem to suggest. Perhaps you are correct Pantheory and time is nothing more than an interval of change. However, I ask you to consider what is change? We typically think of change as an explanation for why something is different than how it was, but this does not clearly define why something changes or how it has changed. If we dig deeper into the mechanism of change, we will find physical motion as the cause. This can be demonstrated in that a change in a body's position is caused by the motion of the body relative to our own position. The erosion of a landscape is caused by the motions of matter and energy as it applies forces upon the land that it is acting upon. Even when considering sources of change that do not seem to have motion, such as that of the wave of colors produced by electrochemical processes in a cuttlefish, there is always an underlying mechanism which is in motion that produces such change. The colors in our clothing fade due to exposer to photons and chemicals which strip the pigments from the material. I can continue to list many more examples of things that change. The point is that we will always find that it is actual physical motion that drives change. That is my reason for not accepting that time is just an interval of change because it is physical motion that drives change and not change that drives physical motion. If we take the example where we can define time by dividing the distance traveled by the speed at which we traversed such distance and then place ourselves in the rest frame where our displacement and speed equals zero, then when we try to determine our time we get a division by zero which is undefined. One could state that this is a relative matter but we are still left with mathematics for which only works if we are in fact in motion relative to something else. This mathematical paradox of an undefined time for the rest frame of reference can only be resolved if we consider that we are always in motion through the dimension of time and that we do indeed traverse a physical distance through this fourth dimension. I now have internet and my ISP has provided me with web space to upload the images I have created so that we can continue this discussion and explore the mathematics that I have derived as explained earlier in my posts. I understand that this mathematical framework does not assure that the theory is correct, nor does it mean that temporal uniformity will gain acceptance by my peers as Swansont has pointed out. However, a theory without a mathematical basis is forever doomed to failure as it cannot provide us with a means to check the validity of such theory. A good theory not only provides us with definitions that describe the mechanics of the universe, but provides us with the means to rule it out by checking its assertions as provided by the mathematics. I will start by breaking the mathematics into simpler components from which I will make seperate posts describing the mechanics of each component. Once all of the equations have been defined I will assemble them together and post the images that they graph along with a link to the Mathematica file that I have produced so that everyone with Mathematica 5.2 or greater can reproduce the graphs and images. We will begin the discussion this week once I have set up my web space and have uploaded the images and files that I will be posting : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now