Emergent Time (split from imaginary mass)

[eytan_il]

Matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy result from the existence of a field of time,

 

For the last 10 years I've been working on your question along with, entropy and memory

of spacetime. From each event we can connect a curve to the "big bang" such that the proper time

it measures along it will be maximal. On ordinary geodesic curves on the Lorentzian manifold of

spacetime, only local maximum of proper time is measured. The field of time is absolute maximal

time. As such, it defines a scalar field on the manifold of spacetime. This scalar field has a gradient.

Where there is matter, more than one such curves of absolute maximum proper time intersect and

the gradient becomes discontiuous. Spacetime resolves the discontiuity by quantum uncertainty. A

limit to the quantum theory is a classical one which I also worked on. The theory uses tensors but

is so simple and so revolutionary that I find it very difficult to publish though there is a physics professor

who likes the idea. Currently I try to publish the theory in the Canadian Journal of Physics which

is expected to reject the paper and not due to professional reasons.

If they accept the paper I will have to delete the following link:

http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time

The theory not only explains that spacetime has memory in the form of scalar field but also shows

how the field is defined by matter which is simply a geodesical conflict in spacetime.

Entropy is simply a result of motion of singularities of the gradient of the time field.

The theroy also discusses Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as ordinary matter as

3 solutions of one equation.

[michel123456]

Matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy result from the existence of a field of time,

 

For the last 10 years I've been working on your question along with, entropy and memory

of spacetime. From each event we can connect a curve to the "big bang" such that the proper time

it measures along it will be maximal. On ordinary geodesic curves on the Lorentzian manifold of

spacetime, only local maximum of proper time is measured. The field of time is absolute maximal

time. As such, it defines a scalar field on the manifold of spacetime. This scalar field has a gradient.

Where there is matter, more than one such curves of absolute maximum proper time intersect and

the gradient becomes discontiuous. Spacetime resolves the discontiuity by quantum uncertainty. A

limit to the quantum theory is a classical one which I also worked on. The theory uses tensors but

is so simple and so revolutionary that I find it very difficult to publish though there is a physics professor

who likes the idea. Currently I try to publish the theory in the Canadian Journal of Physics which

is expected to reject the paper and not due to professional reasons.

If they accept the paper I will have to delete the following link:

http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time

The theory not only explains that spacetime has memory in the form of scalar field but also shows

how the field is defined by matter which is simply a geodesical conflict in spacetime.

Entropy is simply a result of motion of singularities of the gradient of the time field.

The theroy also discusses Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as ordinary matter as

3 solutions of one equation.

(bolded mine)

How do you get more than one curve?

[eytan_il]

Dear readers,

Here is a list of events that lead to an offered theory I would like you to comment on.

1) The main idea was that a particle clock measures time from the big bang to each event.

From all such particles we pick up (problem with axiom of choice unless only recursive curves

are allowed) the ones that measured the maximum proper time. Geodesic curves measure

locally maximal proper time. So our selection is apparently from all geodesic curves connecting

an event to the big bang. This idea leads to a scalar field of time but the gradient of the

field has unacceptable singularities where there is matter. To resolve this problem we must

assume that our test particles will not move along geodesic curves everywhere but only in

vacuum. We are coerced to accept that the motion of our particle clocks will not be geodesic in

matter. Our Lagrangian must demand that the curvature of the curves will be minimized along

with the Ricci scalar curvature of space-time. One outcome is physics without matter because

matter will be simply non zero curvature of the gradient of the time field. Einstein's

equation will become geometric with curvature functions on both sides.

That lead to a theory based on an operator I used in US patent : 7,424,462 that was submitted

in 2004 and accepted in 2008. My boss, Mr Yossi Avni approved my action operator in handwritten

signature recognition software as a minimum cost function in 2003. The offered action is

therefore interesting also in applied mathematics.

2) In the past I focused on representation of perpendicular time in order to avoid Kerr like

metric tensors of space-time. That is possible at least locally but referees hated the

idea and therefore it was almost totally removed from my original paper.

3) In the papers I previously submitted to Foundations of Physics, Canadian Journal of Physics,

and Physical Review Letters D. Referees objected that it will use absolute time. Part of it is my

fault that I didn't make it clear enough that the gradient of the discussed time field is local.

They had objected the idea of using a value that is not locally calculated but they had failed to

notice that the offered action does not explicitly use such a value but rather its local gardient.

This explanation was added to the current paper.

4) I am dyslexic and that fact leads to extreme difficulties in manipulating mathematical symbols. That

caused many errors in Euler Lagrange equations that took me years to fix, also thanks to professor

David Lovelock. After the errors were fixed, I could at last show conservation laws and geodesical

motion of the curvature. That is a surprise. The particle clocks are not geodesic in motion but the

field of their curvature (perpendicular to their motion) is !!! These calculation are of high

importance and they are now in the paper.

5) It is apparent that the theory predicts Dark Matter. That subject was included.

6) Finally there is a test to the theory. If the theory is "correct" then photons must slow down

in sub atomic level. It is a clear cut test. Either the theory works or not !!!

The bad news are that no such effect has ever been observed. That doesn't mean the effect is

untrue. Known slowing down of light in matter is mainly due to emission chains. One photon is

absorbed and a new one is emitted. No single photon has ever been observed slowing down in atomic

or in sub-atomic level, I have no idea how to devise such an experiment or if it is possible at all.

It is quite possible that due to this prediction, my research for the last 10 years will go down

the drain but that is physics and its difference from mathematics. A theory must agree with

observation.

Here are links to the paper. If it works, it is a breakthrough. If not then at least take it as

an attempt. Eitehr way I'm not different than any other researcher in the field. The only difference

is that the circumstances lead to a theory that started in computerized vision and not in physics.

If there is a Journal that accepts the paper, it will be granted copyrights and therefore the links

in this message will have to be removed.

Here are links. Most important is if there are any ideas of how to show 6 is correct !!!

http://freepdfhosting.com/f7a881b129.pdf

http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time

Warm regards,

Eytan Suchard.

BE_Problem4.pdf

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Nominally identical threads merged. One per subject, please

[eytan_il]

Matter, Dark Matter and Dark Energy result from the existence of a field of time,

 

For the last 10 years I've been working on your question along with, entropy and memory

of spacetime. From each event we can connect a curve to the "big bang" such that the proper time

it measures along it will be maximal. On ordinary geodesic curves on the Lorentzian manifold of

spacetime, only local maximum of proper time is measured. The field of time is absolute maximal

time. As such, it defines a scalar field on the manifold of spacetime. This scalar field has a gradient.

Where there is matter, more than one such curves of absolute maximum proper time intersect and

the gradient becomes discontiuous. Spacetime resolves the discontiuity by quantum uncertainty. A

limit to the quantum theory is a classical one which I also worked on. The theory uses tensors but

is so simple and so revolutionary that I find it very difficult to publish though there is a physics professor

who likes the idea. Currently I try to publish the theory in the Canadian Journal of Physics which

is expected to reject the paper and not due to professional reasons.

If they accept the paper I will have to delete the following link:

http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time

The theory not only explains that spacetime has memory in the form of scalar field but also shows

how the field is defined by matter which is simply a geodesical conflict in spacetime.

Entropy is simply a result of motion of singularities of the gradient of the time field.

The theroy also discusses Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as ordinary matter as

3 solutions of one equation.

****************************************************************************************

IMPORTANT: All copyrights reserved to JMP - Journal of Modern Physics !!!

****************************************************************************************

 

 

Dear readers,

Here is a list of events that lead to an offered theory I would like you to comment on.

1) The main idea was that a particle clock measures time from the big bang to each event.

From all such particles we pick up (problem with axiom of choice unless only recursive curves

are allowed) the ones that measured the maximum proper time. Geodesic curves measure

locally maximal proper time. So our selection is apparently from all geodesic curves connecting

an event to the big bang. This idea leads to a scalar field of time but the gradient of the

field has unacceptable singularities where there is matter. To resolve this problem we must

assume that our test particles will not move along geodesic curves everywhere but only in

vacuum. We are coerced to accept that the motion of our particle clocks will not be geodesic in

matter. Our Lagrangian must demand that the curvature of the curves will be minimized along

with the Ricci scalar curvature of space-time. One outcome is physics without matter because

matter will be simply non zero curvature of the gradient of the time field. Einstein's

equation will become geometric with curvature functions on both sides.

That lead to a theory based on an operator I used in US patent : 7,424,462 that was submitted

in 2004 and accepted in 2008. My boss, Mr Yossi Avni approved my action operator in handwritten

signature recognition software as a minimum cost function in 2003. The offered action is

therefore interesting also in applied mathematics.

2) In the past I focused on representation of perpendicular time in order to avoid Kerr like

metric tensors of space-time. That is possible at least locally but referees hated the

idea and therefore it was almost totally removed from my original paper.

3) In the papers I previously submitted to Foundations of Physics, Canadian Journal of Physics,

and Physical Review Letters D. Referees objected that it will use absolute time. Part of it is my

fault that I didn't make it clear enough that the gradient of the discussed time field is local.

They had objected the idea of using a value that is not locally calculated but they had failed to

notice that the offered action does not explicitly use such a value but rather its local gardient.

This explanation was added to the current paper.

4) I am dyslexic and that fact leads to extreme difficulties in manipulating mathematical symbols. That

caused many errors in Euler Lagrange equations that took me years to fix, also thanks to professor

David Lovelock. After the errors were fixed, I could at last show conservation laws and geodesical

motion of the curvature. That is a surprise. The particle clocks are not geodesic in motion but the

field of their curvature (perpendicular to their motion) is !!! These calculation are of high

importance and they are now in the paper.

5) It is apparent that the theory predicts Dark Matter. That subject was included.

6) Finally there is a test to the theory. If the theory is "correct" then photons must slow down

in sub atomic level. It is a clear cut test. Either the theory works or not !!!

The bad news are that no such effect has ever been observed. That doesn't mean the effect is

untrue. Known slowing down of light in matter is mainly due to emission chains. One photon is

absorbed and a new one is emitted. No single photon has ever been observed slowing down in atomic

or in sub-atomic level, I have no idea how to devise such an experiment or if it is possible at all.

It is quite possible that due to this prediction, my research for the last 10 years will go down

the drain but that is physics and its difference from mathematics. A theory must agree with

observation.

Here are links to the paper. If it works, it is a breakthrough. If not then at least take it as

an attempt. Eitehr way I'm not different than any other researcher in the field. The only difference

is that the circumstances lead to a theory that started in computerized vision and not in physics.

If there is a Journal that accepts the paper, it will be granted copyrights and therefore the links

in this message will have to be removed.

Here are links. Most important is if there are any ideas of how to show 6 is correct !!!

****************************************************************************************

IMPORTANT: All copyrights reserved to JMP - Journal of Modern Physics !!!

****************************************************************************************

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/f7a881b129.pdf

http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time

Warm regards,

Eytan Suchard.

 

 

Dear readers,

Here is a list of events that lead to an offered theory I would like you to comment on.

1) The main idea was that a particle clock measures time from the big bang to each event.

From all such particles we pick up (problem with axiom of choice unless only recursive curves

are allowed) the ones that measured the maximum proper time. Geodesic curves measure

locally maximal proper time. So our selection is apparently from all geodesic curves connecting

an event to the big bang. This idea leads to a scalar field of time but the gradient of the

field has unacceptable singularities where there is matter. To resolve this problem we must

assume that our test particles will not move along geodesic curves everywhere but only in

vacuum. We are coerced to accept that the motion of our particle clocks will not be geodesic in

matter. Our Lagrangian must demand that the curvature of the curves will be minimized along

with the Ricci scalar curvature of space-time. One outcome is physics without matter because

matter will be simply non zero curvature of the gradient of the time field. Einstein's

equation will become geometric with curvature functions on both sides.

That lead to a theory based on an operator I used in US patent : 7,424,462 that was submitted

in 2004 and accepted in 2008. My boss, Mr Yossi Avni approved my action operator in handwritten

signature recognition software as a minimum cost function in 2003. The offered action is

therefore interesting also in applied mathematics.

2) In the past I focused on representation of perpendicular time in order to avoid Kerr like

metric tensors of space-time. That is possible at least locally but referees hated the

idea and therefore it was almost totally removed from my original paper.

3) In the papers I previously submitted to Foundations of Physics, Canadian Journal of Physics,

and Physical Review Letters D. Referees objected that it will use absolute time. Part of it is my

fault that I didn't make it clear enough that the gradient of the discussed time field is local.

They had objected the idea of using a value that is not locally calculated but they had failed to

notice that the offered action does not explicitly use such a value but rather its local gardient.

This explanation was added to the current paper.

4) I am dyslexic and that fact leads to extreme difficulties in manipulating mathematical symbols. That

caused many errors in Euler Lagrange equations that took me years to fix, also thanks to professor

David Lovelock. After the errors were fixed, I could at last show conservation laws and geodesical

motion of the curvature. That is a surprise. The particle clocks are not geodesic in motion but the

field of their curvature (perpendicular to their motion) is !!! These calculation are of high

importance and they are now in the paper.

5) It is apparent that the theory predicts Dark Matter. That subject was included.

6) Finally there is a test to the theory. If the theory is "correct" then photons must slow down

in sub atomic level. It is a clear cut test. Either the theory works or not !!!

The bad news are that no such effect has ever been observed. That doesn't mean the effect is

untrue. Known slowing down of light in matter is mainly due to emission chains. One photon is

absorbed and a new one is emitted. No single photon has ever been observed slowing down in atomic

or in sub-atomic level, I have no idea how to devise such an experiment or if it is possible at all.

It is quite possible that due to this prediction, my research for the last 10 years will go down

the drain but that is physics and its difference from mathematics. A theory must agree with

observation.

Here are links to the paper. If it works, it is a breakthrough. If not then at least take it as

an attempt. Eitehr way I'm not different than any other researcher in the field. The only difference

is that the circumstances lead to a theory that started in computerized vision and not in physics.

If there is a Journal that accepts the paper, it will be granted copyrights and therefore the links

in this message will have to be removed.

Here are links. Most important is if there are any ideas of how to show 6 is correct !!!

IMPORTANT: ALL RIGHTS ARE RESERVED TO JMP - JOURNAL OF MODERN PHYSICS !!!

 

http://freepdfhosting.com/f7a881b129.pdf

http://he.scribd.com/doc/62076298/Emergent-Time

Warm regards,

Eytan Suchard.