reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Dr. E:

Clearly it does. However, what I’m saying is that, if, for velocity c = 1, we choose a unit of time (1 Planck time, 1 second, whatever) then that fixes a unit of space for the equation of motion, c = s/t = 1/1. Please see the attached diagram.

An expansion from the origin of the diagram, in all directions, at unit speed, ds/dt = 1/1 = c, will expand as the red sphere with...

view entire post

Dr. E:

Clearly it does. However, what I’m saying is that, if, for velocity c = 1, we choose a unit of time (1 Planck time, 1 second, whatever) then that fixes a unit of space for the equation of motion, c = s/t = 1/1. Please see the attached diagram.

An expansion from the origin of the diagram, in all directions, at unit speed, ds/dt = 1/1 = c, will expand as the red sphere with radius r = 1, in one unit of time. But if the coordinates tangent to the sphere, at x = 1, and y = 1, are used to calculate the radius of the expansion, according to the Pythagorean theorem, the calculation would give the radius of the green sphere, r’ = 2^1/2 = 1.414….

Thus, the red sphere, with radius r = 1 is the real expansion, while the green sphere, with radius r’ = 1.414…, does not exist, it is an imaginary sphere, projected we might say from the real one. Hence, the question I asked was, since r’ goes from 0 to 1.414… in one unit of time, wouldn’t the speed of expansion for the green sphere be s/t = 1.414/1, instead of 1/1?

However, after thinking about it, I realized that the answer is no, it is still equal to c, for the following reason. As soon as we choose a unit of time for c that fixes its unit of space, it also fixes a unit, albeit a different unit, for ic, because, no matter how finely we divide r, into ‘a’ intervals, for integration purposes, the corresponding, ‘b’, intervals that apply to r’ will always be 41.4% larger than those of a, so when r reaches unity at a/a, r’ will reach unity at b/b. I guess it’s analogous to the apparent velocity of an EM wave in a waveguide.

The question is, though, if it’s proportional to the red (real) sphere, why use the green one? I can see why it would be useful in quantum mechanics (it’s the unit circle in the complex plane), and they need it for the phase space of gauge theory, but it seems to me that, the postulate that “time is an emergent phenomenon resulting from a fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c,” is confusing, since expansion, by definition, is motion, ds/dt.

So, in a sense, to identify r’ with the fourth dimension is not wrong, but to say it expands at the “rate” of s/t makes no sense, because it already represents a rate. For a rate to grow at a rate would turn it into acceleration. The radius r’ expands, as the radius r expands, at the rate of c, but this is an expression of the s/t relation itself, one unit of space for one unit of time, the unit speed, which is a four dimensional ratio of 3 space dimensions over 1 time dimension.

Hence, in the equation of motion, the spatial expansion is defined in three, orthogonal dimensions, while the fourth dimension is time, defined in zero, orthogonal, dimensions; that is, the equation of motion for the spherical expansion is (s^3/t^0 * (tn^0 – t0^0). When n = 1, we get the spatial unit sphere inside the eightfold cube, but we also get the complex, imaginary, sphere, circumscribing the cube.

In other words, the fourth dimension is the time dimension, but it is the inverse of the three space dimensions, x1, x2, x3, on the unit circle, and x1’, x2’, x3’, on the complex circle. At unit speed, s/t = 1/1, x4 = ct (r) and x4’ = ict (r’) represent unit expansion, which means that they can easily be mistakenly identified as a fourth spatial dimension, but in reality they only correspond to the real fourth dimension, t^0.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Hello Excal,

i think you may be making this a bit more complicated than it is . . . i hope the following might help!

real quick, before we get into it, could the expanding fourth dimension be the source of compactified kaluza-klein geometires? imagine points of x4 expanding in a spherically-symmetric...

view entire post

Hello Excal,

i think you may be making this a bit more complicated than it is . . . i hope the following might help!

real quick, before we get into it, could the expanding fourth dimension be the source of compactified kaluza-klein geometires? imagine points of x4 expanding in a spherically-symmetric manner:

http://www.diffusion.ens.fr/vip/images/10.11.jpg

http:
//www.asci.org/artikel945.html

(more on this later)

in his 1912 manuscript, Einstein wrote x4 = ict.

thus dx4/dt = ic

ergo x4 is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions. now this movement can be interpreted as an expansion. there are many, many parallel clues for this, from quantum mechanics, to relativity, to statistical mechanics, to cosmology, to all the arrows of time and their assymetries.

one simple clue for the concept of a moving or expanding fourth dimension is the propagation of a photon. an ageless, timeless photon, which remians stationary in the fourth dimension, is represented by a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront of probability. ergo the fourth dimension may be represented by a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront.

so in order to get the postualte "the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial diemsnions, we look at several clues:"

x4 = ict

dx4/dt = ic

the ageless photon

entropy

time's arrows

times assymmetries

qm's entanglement

relativity's simultaneity = inherent nonlocality of the fourth dimension

the only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c relative through the three spatial dimensions.

more clues are discussed in the paper, where towards the bottom of page 6, i write:

"Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and ict are very different entities. Einstein

states, “One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u (which Einstein sometimes writes as

x4) is always purely imaginary.” It is imaginary because the expansion of the fourth dimension is

orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions in every direction, just as the radii of an expanding

sphere are perpendicular to its surface at every point."

note the i in the equation dx4/dt = ic.

if we considered a 2d plane, and an expanding 3rd dimension, we could write dx3/dt = ic which would manifest itself an expanding sphere of locality. in the 2d plane, this would appear as an expanding circle.

http://www.diffusion.ens.fr/vip/images/10.11.jpg

an expanding fourth dimension manifests itself as an expanding sphere in our three spatial dimensions.

http://www.diffusion.ens.fr/vip/images/10.11.jpg

M
DT may provide a natural explanation for compactified dimensions.

Now an interesting thing is that as the fourth dimension expanded, the entire surface of the sphere in the above figure would retain a locality, explaining both the non-locality in quantum mechanics' EPR paradox and entanglement, as well as the non-locality in relativity's simultaneity, where a phton remains local in the fourth dimension, no matter how far it travels. In both QM and realtivity, two photons emitted from a common origin can yet be considered to retain a locality (manifested in entanglement and agelessness), no matter how far they travel apart. Perhaps this arises from a fourth expanding dimension, which is inherently nonlocal via its very expansion, which would also account for free-will, time as we witness it, and entropy.

So it is that time, time's arrows, and time's assymetries may be viewed as emergent phenomonena in all realms, all originating from a common, underlying physical reality dx4/dt = ic, as elaborated on in the paper.

Well Excal, thanks for your feedback and I hope this helps! I hope I am adressing your questions and not being too redundant in trying to communicate the motivations for MDT.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Dr. E:

You are welcome to the feedback for what it’s worth. I find that theoretical development is greatly dependent upon communication, and dialog versus monolog is an essential part of that communication, lest we end up convincing ourselves that our ideas are sound, but fail to convince others. So, I appreciate your patience.

My basic problem in trying to follow your thinking is...

view entire post

Dr. E:

You are welcome to the feedback for what it’s worth. I find that theoretical development is greatly dependent upon communication, and dialog versus monolog is an essential part of that communication, lest we end up convincing ourselves that our ideas are sound, but fail to convince others. So, I appreciate your patience.

My basic problem in trying to follow your thinking is this: Your identification of the fourth dimension as the radii of an expanding sphere, which are perpendicular to the three coordinate points on the surface of the sphere seems misguided to me.

The dictionary definition of the word “dimension” is: “A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.” In mathematics this means: “The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.”

The least number of rectangular coordinates it takes to uniquely specify a given point on the surface of a sphere is three; the point’s width, height, and length distances from the origin. The least number of polar coordinates it takes to specify the same point is three: the two angles theta and psi, and the point’s distance from the origin, p. To me, what you seem to have done is taken the distance parameter, p, of the polar coordinate system and made it a fourth dimension in the rectangular coordinate system, as if it were a fourth dimension of space in the rectangular coordinate system, by virtue of its orthogonality to x, y, z.

If this is correct, then you are not following the definition of “dimension” that your readers follow, because the x, y, z, point can be uniquely identified with three measures of spatial extent. It is not necessary to use four dimensions to uniquely identify the point. If this is not correct and the fourth dimension is not a dimension of space, then it must be a dimension of time, which is something your readers could readily grasp, because one time dimension, in addition to three space dimensions, is the least number of independent coordinates required to uniquely specify a point in spacetime.

However, you state that it’s a mistake to identify this fourth dimension as a dimension of time. You say it’s an imaginary dimension. My question then is, “What is a dimension of the imagination? Is there more than one? If so, what do these dimensions specify?”

In putting the question this way, I’m not trying to be facetious, or mock you in any way, but simply trying to illustrate my confusion in regards to your work. To me, the fourth dimension, as ict, is always imaginary, because it specifies (being orthogonal to x’, y’, z’ on the unit circle of the complex plane) a unique point on a circle that doesn’t exist, as I’ve tried to explain above. The green circle of unit expansion in the diagram I provided as an illustration in the previous post is simply a geometric artifact of the real red circle of unit expansion.

If the red circle doesn’t exist, then, like a shadow of an object, the green circle doesn’t exist either. That is why Einstein insisted that it is always a purely imaginary quantity.

Having pointed this out, I don't wish to convey the idea that I think your work has no value. I just think there is more analysis required.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Thanks Excal,

Yes it is difficult to picture the fourth dimension. Some people over at Michio Kaku's forums have been kind in helping out with figures, and I'm currently working on some too:

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1491&page=21

I quote Einstein a lot in the paper when it comes to the fourth dimension: "Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and...

view entire post

Thanks Excal,

Yes it is difficult to picture the fourth dimension. Some people over at Michio Kaku's forums have been kind in helping out with figures, and I'm currently working on some too:

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1491&page=21

I quote Einstein a lot in the paper when it comes to the fourth dimension: "Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and ict are very different entities. Einstein

states, “One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u (which Einstein sometimes writes as

x4) is always purely imaginary.” It is imaginary because the expansion of the fourth dimension is

orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions in every direction, just as the radii of an expanding

sphere are perpendicular to its surface at every point."

Einstein writes, "One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u is always purely imaginary."

i represents an orthogonality, so i would infer that i represents a perpendicularity--the fourth dimension is perpenidular to the three spatial dimensions.

now einstein also writes x4 = ict, so that dx4/dt = ic.

consider a 2D x-y plane and an expanding 3D sphere. the expansion of the sphere would appear as an expanding circle in the 2D plane. now, the surface of the sphere would be perpendicular to every point in the 2D plane. instead of writing the third coordinate as z, we could associate it with i--the imaginary number, which would represent the orthogonal surface at every point in our 2d plane.

now, let us consider the above with an extra dimension, so:

consider a 3D space and an expanding 4D surface. the expansion of the 4D surface would appear as an expanding sphere in the 3D space. now, the surface of the 4D surface would be perpendicular to every point in the 3D space. instead of writing the fourth coordinate as x4, we could associate it with i--the imaginary number, which would represent the orthogonal surface at every point in our 3D space.

now, 4D is a tough entity to envision, and i don't know if my theory improves on previous treatments.

but, it does do the following:

1. recognizes that time is not the fourth dimension, but x4 = ict, as Einstein and Minkowski agreed.

2. shows all of time's arrows from various realms derive from a common physical reality--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic

3. shows all of time's assymetries from various realms derive from a common physical reality--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic

4. derives relativity from a simple postulate/equation: dx4/dt = ic

5. presents a physical model for QM's nonlocality & entanglement, relativity's silumtaneity, and entropy

6. unifies the dualities with a common postulate: wave-particle duality, space-time duality, and matter-energy duality are all natural results of a fourth expanding dimension, which distributes nonlocality via its expansion. note that entanglement always occurs between two particles that were formerly in contact, and thus all nonlocality emerges from a common point or locality--another clue.

7. provides a physical model for time's fundamental assymetry in this universe

8. shows that time, as measured on our watches and witnessed in the world around us, emerges from a deeper reality dx4/dt = ic.

i am working on some more figures which i will be sharing soon.

thanks for your feedback & again i hope that the responses are helpful.

more figures soon.

also, Dr. John Baez writes at: http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/baeztime.html

"The laws of physics do not distinguish the future from the past direction of time. More precisely, the famous CPT theorem says that the laws are invariant under the combination of charge conjugation, space inversion and time reversal. In fact effects that are not invariant under the combination CP are very weak, so to a good approximation, the laws are invariant under the time reverseal operation T alone. Despite this, there is a very obvious difference between the future and past directions of time in the universe we live in. One only has to see a film run backward to be aware of this." --http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/baeztime.html

MDT presents a physical model that naturally distinguishes between the past and future, providing a model for entropy and time's arrows--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Thanks for the comments Alex,

Yes--I used E=mc^2 as it is the more common form of the equation and we are also addressing a lay audience, but the results are the same! Mass is equivalent to energy because the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. The more formal approach is included in longer treatments of Moving Dimensions Theory, along with...

view entire post

Thanks for the comments Alex,

Yes--I used E=mc^2 as it is the more common form of the equation and we are also addressing a lay audience, but the results are the same! Mass is equivalent to energy because the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. The more formal approach is included in longer treatments of Moving Dimensions Theory, along with treatments of proper time, which jive perfectly with MDT. There's a 5,000 word limit on the current essay, so I had to drop a lot.

Moving Dimensions Theory fully supports Feynman diagrams and it actually provides a *physical* stage underlying Feynman's many-paths interpretations and Huygens' Principle in all realms.

"Consider the emission of a photon in free space," could apply to a photon being emitted from an atom or entity into an unobstructed area. Now I know one could argue there are no such things as a truly unobstructed area and that space is naturally abuzz with a quantum soup, but there again, we see that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, so there is indeed a lot going on at every point throughout "free" space!

However, we can picture a photon emitted into this which propagates without crashing into anything, and that was how I was using the notion of a photon being emiited in free space. Perhaps I could have written "picture a photon being emitted from an atom or other entity into relatively free space where it does not crash into anything," but I feel most people get the drift of the shorter sentence, and there's a word limit. Perhaps the longer description will appear in future papers, so thanks!

Thanks for noting the dropped constant "ic" in the third step on page 7--I saw that and corrected it a couple weeks back. It got dropped in the transcibing, and it comes back in the next step and is there at the end; but perhaps I'll upload the corrected version. However, the conclusion remains the same: dx4/dt = ic --> the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Have you ever thought about Feyman's "many paths" interpretations of quantum mechanics and why it is that a particle somehow "feels" out every path en route to its destination? Well, moving dimensions theory accounts for this.

How can a single point become a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront?

It happens all the time in QED and nature, and it happens all the "time" in teh expansion of the fourth dimension.

Please see Huygens Principle, as clues are to be found in the Huygens-Freznel Principle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens'_principle : "The Huygens–Fresnel principle (named for Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens, and French physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel) is a method of analysis applied to problems of wave propagation (both in the far field limit and in near field diffraction). It recognizes that each point of an advancing wave front is in fact the center of a fresh disturbance and the source of a new train of waves; and that the advancing wave as a whole may be regarded as the sum of all the secondary waves arising from points in the medium already traversed. This view of wave propagation helps better understand a variety of wave phenomena, such as diffraction."

MDT states that the expansion of the fourth dimension appears as a spherically-symmetric wavefront expanding through the three spatial dimensions.

Just like Huygens' Principle, which pervades all levels of nature, MDT recognizes that each point of an advancing wave front is in fact the center of a fresh disturbance and the source of a new train of waves; and that the advancing wave as a whole may be regarded as the sum of all the secondary waves arising from points in the medium already traversed. The fourth dimension is expanding, manifesting itself as an expanding 3D sphere in our world, and each point on its surfcae obeys Huygens' principle, underlying Huygens' principle in all realms.

And thus MDT explains double-slit diffraction.

Wikipedia writes,

Huygens' principle follows formally from the fundamental postulate of quantum electrodynamics – that wavefunctions of every object propagate over any and all allowed (unobstructed) paths from the source to the given point. It is then the result of interference (addition) of all path integrals that defines the amplitude and phase of the wavefunction of the object at this given point, and thus defines the probability of finding the object (say, a photon) at this point. Not only light quanta (photons), but electrons, neutrons, protons, atoms, molecules, and all other objects obey this simple principle.

And so it is seen that MDT underlies Feynman's many-paths treatments and the fundamental postulate of quantum electrodynamics – that wavefunctions of every object propagate over any and all allowed (unobstructed) paths from the source to the given point. All paths have a probability of being followed because of the fundamental nature of a fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The probability distribution of the photon expands at the rate of c. After a photon is emitted, the spherical wavefront that defines its probability for being found at any point has a radius of 186,000 miles. This is the net result of billions and billions of quantum expansions of the fourth dimension, and during each expansion, the photon had an equal chance of being found anywhere on the surface of the net sphere, which is the sum total of billions upon billions of smaller spheres.

These diagrams illustrate the basis of Huygens' Principle, which pervades all of nature, providing clues for a fundamental reality from which Huygens' principle arises:

http://support.svi.nl/wikiimg/hugensPrinciple_2.png

ht
tp://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=5704&rendTypeId=4

http://www.le
ms.brown.edu/vision/researchAreas/Shocks3D/Figs/fig4.jpg

MDT describes the fundamental motion of the unviverse, from which time and entropy arise--both which characterize the constnat motion of dx4/dt = ic.

From the simple postulate: "The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions," captured in the simple equation d(x4)/dt=ic, the following emerges:

Huygens' Principle: The fundamental postulate of quantum electrodynamics – that wavefunctions of every object propagate over any and all allowed (unobstructed) paths from the source to the given point

Time

Entropy

Action at a Distance

Entnaglement

Double slit interference

Relativity

Length contraction

Time dilation

The equivalence of mass and energy: E=mc^2: Energy is but matter (momenergy) caught upon the fourth expanding dimension.

Time's radiative arrow

Time's thermodynamic arrow

Time's qunantum Arrow

And finally, the goal of physics is ultimately to describe physical reality. We live in a universe whose physical reality is that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic, from which relativity may be derived and which provides a physical model underlying entropy, entanglement, Hugens' principle time's arrows, and father time himself.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Hello again Alex--your comments brought to mind this discourse on a passage from Brian Greene's Elegant Universe.

MDT & Brian Greene’s Elegant Universe:

In An Elegant Universe, Brian Greene almost characterizes Moving Dimensions Theory’s deeper reality:

“Einstein found that precisely this idea—the sharing of motion between different dimensions—underlies all of the remarkable...

view entire post

Hello again Alex--your comments brought to mind this discourse on a passage from Brian Greene's Elegant Universe.

MDT & Brian Greene’s Elegant Universe:

In An Elegant Universe, Brian Greene almost characterizes Moving Dimensions Theory’s deeper reality:

“Einstein found that precisely this idea—the sharing of motion between different dimensions—underlies all of the remarkable physics of special relativity, so long as we realize that not only can spatial dimensions share an object’s motion, but the time dimension can share this motion as well. In fact, in the majority of circumstances, most of an object’s motion is through time, not space. Let’s see what this means.” Space, Time, and the Eye of the Beholder, An Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, p. 49

Right here Brian almost grasps MDT. But time is not a dimension. Time is an emergent phenomenon that arises because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. Let’s rewrite Brian’s paragraph with MDT's insights:

“Einstein found that precisely this idea—the sharing of motion between different dimensions—underlies all of the remarkable physics of special relativity, so long as we realize that not only can the three spatial dimensions share an object’s motion, but the fourth dimension, which is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions, can share this motion as well. In fact, in the majority of circumstances, most of an object’s motion is through the fourth dimension, not the three spatial dimensions. Let’s see what this means.” Space, Time, and the Eye of the Beholder, An Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, p. 49

Most objects are traveling far less than c through the three spatial dimensions. Thus most objects are traveling close to the rate of c through the fourth dimension. To be stationary in the three spatial dimensions implies a velocity of c through the fourth dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. To be stationary in the fourth expandning dimension, as is the timeless, ageless, nonlocal photon, implies a velocity of c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

dx(4)/dt = ic

Brian Greene continues:

“Motion through space is a concept we learn about early in life. Although we often don’t think of things in such terms, we also learn that we, our friends, our belongings, and so forth all move through time, as well. When we look at a clock or a wristwatch, even while we idly sit and watch TV, the reading on the watch is constantly changing, constantly “moving forward in time.” We and everything around us are aging, inevitably passing from one moment of time to the next. In fact, the mathematician Hermann Minkowski, and ultimately Einstein as well, advocated thinking about time as another dimension of the universe—the fourth dimension—in some ways quite similar to the three spatial dimensions in which we find ourselves immersed.” Space, Time, and the Eye of the Beholder, An Elegant Universe, Brian Greene, p. 49

What Greene misses is that the time measured on your watch—the ticking seconds—is not the fourth dimension, but it is a phenomenon that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The time measured on a clock or watch relies on the emission and propagation of photons, be it in the context of an unwinding clock spring or an oscillating quartz crystal, or even the beating of a heart. And photons are matter that surf the fourth expanding dimension. As time is so inextricably wed to the emission and propagation of photons, and as photons are matter caught in the fourth expanding dimension, our notion of “time” inherits properties of the fourth expanding dimension. But the fact is that time emerges from a deeper physical reality—a fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Brian Green continues on, heading off in the wrong direction that just misses the central postulate of MDT:

“Although it sounds abstract, the notion of time as a dimension is actually concrete.”

But it is not. Can you move to where your watch reads three seconds back in time? Or can you move to where your watch reads an hour back in time? We can walk left or right. We can climb up or down. We can move forwards or backwards. But we can’t move through time like we can through the three spatial dimensions. This is because time, as measured on our watch, is not the fourth dimension, but it is a construct we have devised which is based on the fundamental fact that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, governing the emission and propagation of photons, by which time is known and measured on our watches.

Brian Green continues on,

“When we want to meet someone, we tell them where “in space” we will expect to see them—for instance, the 9th floor of the building on the corner of 53rd Street and 7th avenue. There are three pieces of information here (9th floor, 53rd Street, 7th avenue) reflecting a particular location in the three spatial dimensions of the universe. Equally important, however, is our expectation of when we expect to meet them—for instance, at 3 PM. This piece of information tells us where “in time” our meeting will take place. Events are therefore specified by four pieces of information: three in space and one in time. Such data, it is said, specifies the location of the event in space and in time, or in spacetime, for short. In this sense, time is another dimension.”

But again, time is different from the three spatial dimensions. Time is inextricably wed to our sense of the past—the order stored in our memory, long with our ability to imagine and dream of future events. The present is where we put our dreams into action. However, the time defined by past, present, and future is not a dimension akin to the three spatial dimensions, but rather it is a phenomenon that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello Excal,

Thanks again for your insights/questions.

MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions. All that MDT states is that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. In his 1912 paper Einstein just states x4 = ict. MDT begins at a more...

view entire post

Hello Excal,

Thanks again for your insights/questions.

MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions. All that MDT states is that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. In his 1912 paper Einstein just states x4 = ict. MDT begins at a more fundamental level: dx4/dt=ic, which also provides a physical model accounting for entropy, entnaglement, quantum mechanics' nonlocality, and time and its arrows in all realms, in addition to relativity.

MDT contends that the fourth dimension is very much like the spatial dimensions, except that it is expanding relative to them! dx4/dt = ic.

Now, regarding i, i does not imply "imaginary" in the sense of "it doesn't really exist." But rather i implies a very real perpendicularity.

i is an imaginary number, but it can define very real entities!

For instance, in a complex plane, we can designate the x axis to be real and the y axis to be imaginary. This is a mathematical tool, but the y axis is very real! Imaginary numbers are very useful in describing oscillations and rotations. When we solve an equation and we see one, that is math's way of lettig us know--"hey there is something going on here that is perpendicular to where you started."

If we were called upon to draw i, we would draw it perpendicular to the real number line. i^2 would be -1 on the real number line i^3 would be -i--it would point "south" along the y axis. And i^4 is 1 on the real number line. So multiplying by i rotates something by 90 degrees! Multiplying by i makes something perpendicular to its former self! Now although i is "imaginary," the y-axis is a very real entity. So i has a reality to it.

So if we're solving an equation, and an i pops out, all of a sudden we need to start thinking of an orthogonal space.

Now the way I interpret x4 = ict is that x4 is perpendicular to the three spatial dimensions, and that as t advances on our clock or watch, it moves.

Consider a 2D x-y plane and an expanding 3D sphere. We could then say that the sphere will also expand in the imaginary direction, which is directed along the z axis. The expansion of the sphere would appear as an expanding circle in the 2D plane. Now, the surface of the sphere would be perpendicular to every point in the 2D plane. instead of writing the third coordinate as z, we could associate it with i--the imaginary number, which would represent the orthogonal surface at every point in our 2d plane.

Now, let us consider the above with an extra dimension, so:

consider a 3D space and an expanding 4D surface. The expansion of the 4D surface would appear as an expanding sphere in the 3D space. now, the surface of the 4D surface would be perpendicular to every point in the 3D space. instead of writing the fourth coordinate as x4, we could associate it with i--the imaginary number, which would represent the orthogonal surface at every point in our 3D space.

more clues are discussed in the paper, where towards the bottom of page 6, i write:

"Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and ict are very different entities. Einstein states, “One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u (which Einstein sometimes writes as x4) is always purely imaginary.” It is imaginary because the expansion of the fourth dimension is

orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions in every direction, just as the radii of an expanding sphere are perpendicular to its surface at every point."

The fourth dimension is very very real.

All motion rests upon its fundamental expansion relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Every object moves at but one speed through space-time--c. This is because space-time moves at but one speed through every obeject--c. Catch up with the fourth expanding dimension, and you'll be going close to c relative to the three spatial dimensions. Remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions, and you'll be traveling at close to c relative to the fourth dimension. And isn't it cool that the faster an object moves, the shorter it is in the three spatial dimensions? This is because it is physically being rotated into the fourth dimension--the fundamental source of all motion by its never-ending motion, which sets the universe's maximum velcoity at c.

Relativity implies a frozen, timeless, block universe. But as Galileo said, "Yet it moves!" *Why* is this? Because dx4/dt = ic! And the spherically symmetric expansion that the expanding fourth dimension manifests itself as--this smearing of locality--jives perfectly with the motion of a photon as well as its nonlocal properties, setting its velocity to c independent of the source and rendering it timeless and ageless--stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, which would also explain entanglement with other photons with which it once shared a common origin! And we also get a *physical* model for entropy and time.

Well, I hope this helps! Thansk for the questions--the onus is on me to answer them.

Best,

Dr. E

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Thanks for the comments John,

Yes--perhaps you can interpret it that way, but for the moment I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible, by stating that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic. Einstein's Relativity may be derived from this simple postulate and its equation, and too, it unfreezes time, it liberates us from the block...

view entire post

Thanks for the comments John,

Yes--perhaps you can interpret it that way, but for the moment I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible, by stating that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic. Einstein's Relativity may be derived from this simple postulate and its equation, and too, it unfreezes time, it liberates us from the block universe, and it accounts for quantum mechanics' nonlocality and entangelment, as well as entropy and time's arrows in all realms.

There may be many ways of interpreting a fourth expanding dimension, as you suggest. What do you mean by "quantum constant?"

I propose that a fundamental invariant of the universe is dx4/dt = ic. It is this deeper reality that leads to the constancy of c--both its independence of the velocity of the soure and the fact that it is measured to be c for all observers. dx4/dt = ic accounts for both of these c's in different ways, with the same physical model. It does not simply state that c is constant, but it also states "why."

Time--the t in dx4/dt--is the time we're all so used to--the time we see ticking away on our watches. Now this time is typically measured by some process that involves the propagation of photons, or changes in energy, be it an unwinding clock spring, an oscillating quartz crystal, or an electronic circuit. t is then ultimately tied to the propagation of photons, which are just matter surfing the fourth expanding dimension. And so it is that relativity's math inherits this notion of the fourth dimension, as relativity was born by comntemplating the propagation of light--photons. We define time by the propagation of light, and then we measure the propagation of light via time. This tautology has lead to c's constancy and too, one can see how it is the fount of realtivity's beauty--for think of the very word "relativity." It means that the way we measure physical reality is "relative" to how we are moving through space-time. Does it not make sense that measurements utilizing meter sticks, clocks, and light should be relative to motion, when both the clocks as well as the light depend on photons, which are surfing the fourth expanding dimension, which meter sticks are rotated into, and thus foreshortened in our three spatial dimensions, whenever they move? But yet, there are invariant entities, such as interval, c, and rest mass, and that's what physics has always truly been about--the rock-hard invariance of a physical reality.

MDT proposes a deeper invariance dx4/dt = ic, from which the invariance of c and the invariance of interval both naturally emerge.

Relativity is really all about invariance--about the physical reality that transcends our "relative" perceptions. Einstein once noted that it could of, and perhaps should of, been called "The Theory of Invariance."



From: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/invariance.htm

"Alber
t Einstein was unhappy about the name "theory of relativity". He preferred "theory of invariance". The reason is that [one] cornerstone of his 1905 theory of relativity is that the measured velocity of light is the same (invariant) regardless of any relative motion between a laboratory and the source of light. What Einstein feared came to pass when the popular catchphrase of his theory became "everything is relative". It was snatched up by people not acquainted with the scientific context, who regarded the theory as evidence in support of their own social views. { Arthur Miller, from a letter in New Scientist }" --http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/invariance.htm

From
: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/invariance.htm

"In actual fact, the theory of relativity is anchored in absolutism — in the concrete of Einstein's two postulates: The velocity of light is a universal constant, and the laws of physics are constant. He described these postulates as principles of invariance. An insightful textual analysis of the introductory sections of the 1905 paper would have recognized that the two "postulates" specify unchanging principles that serve as the foundations of the theory. In fact, Einstein called his creation an "Invariententheorie," a theory of invariance. The name "theory of relativity" was coined later in a review by German physicist Max Planck. Einstein resisted that name for years, although he reluctantly bowed to peer pressure. The relativistic features of time and space that led to the term "theory of relativity" are derived from the principles of invariance. { quoted from POSTMODERNIST RHETORIC DOES NOT CHANGE FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC FACTS by Irving M. Klotz, who is a Morrison Professor, Emeritus, in the departments of chemistry and of biochemistry, molecular biology, and cell biology at Northwestern University }

" --http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/invariance.htm

And Moving Dimensions Theory posulates that underlying relativity, as well as quantum mechanics, entropy, statistical mechanics, and time and all her arrows and assymetries, is a deeper *physical* invariance: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions." dx4/dt=ic

Thanks for the comment--hope this helps a bit, and I'll look forward to more!

Best,

Dr. E

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello Excal,

Thanks for the note. I'm enjoying this!

I wrote,

"MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions."

It would have been better worded with "The fourth dimension *represents* a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions."

Or perhaps...

view entire post

Hello Excal,

Thanks for the note. I'm enjoying this!

I wrote,

"MDT agress 100% with Einstein's and Minkowski's relativity. The fourth dimension is a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions."

It would have been better worded with "The fourth dimension *represents* a direction that is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions."

Or perhaps simply "The fourth dimension is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions." Or perhaps "The fourth dimension is orthogonal to each one of the three spatial dimensions."

As MDT agrees with Einstein and Minkowski's relativity, perhaps your argument is more with their formulation of relativity,a nd relativity in general, than with MDT.

Speaking of "directions," Niels Bohr stated "We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down."

The second part of this quote is "The word reality is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly."--Bohr

MDT's greater purpose is grasping the underlying physical *reality* that underlies and physically accounts for relativity, quantum mechanics, entropy, time's arrows, and time.

MDT postulates a deeper universal invariant--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. From this emerges the invariance of c--both in its independence of the velocity of its source, and the independence of velocity of the inertial frame in which it is measured.

Relativity proposes a block universe. Godel pointed out the paradoxical "timeless" implications of this, as well as its inability to account for time as we experience it, and this problem has largely been swept under the rug, along with curiosities such as quantum entanglement, nonlocality and all the dualities--space/time, energy/mass, and wave/particle. Today we are told that that is "just the wya things are" and not to worry about it. Perhaps this helps explains why physics has not really advanced in the past thirty years... for Einstein stated, "curiosity is more importnat than knowledge."

And thus MDT's center and circumference rests upon asking and answering fundamental questions with a simple, elegant *physical* model that comes with both a postulate of a fourth expanding dimension and an equation: dx4/dt = ic.

From this all of relativity may be derived, and an added bonus is that it accounts for quantum mechanics' entanglement and nonlocality.

As you know, relativity has been very well verified in a cornucopia of experiments and observed phenomena over the years.

However, relativity, as interpreted, came with a problem--a block universe. Relativity's interpretations suggested that time is frozen and that free will did not exist. Relativity implied the possibility of time travel, which visitors from the future have yet to verify, and even more paradoxially, without free will, how can one choose to travel back in time anyways?

MDT has liberated us from the block universe.

The great thing about MDT is that it gives us everything relativity gives us--time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of mass and energy--while also libertating us from a timeless, block universe, as well as providing a *physical* model for time, entropy, quantum entanglement and nonlocality, and the equivalence of mass and energy.

Now a major goal of physics has ever been to unify disparate physical phenomena with common principles, postulates, and equations representing something fundamental about our "reality," as Bohr suggested.

MDT suggests a novel, deeper reality in the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello All!

One thing I hope to do is to set up a site which shares excerpts from notable physics papers and books which support Moving Dimensions Theory, or which ask questiosn or pose problems that are solved via MDT

Here is a passage from page 350 of John A. Wheeler's 1998 GEONS, BLACK HOLES, AND QUANTUM FOAM:

"Theory suggests also that black holes of incredibly small size,...

view entire post

Hello All!

One thing I hope to do is to set up a site which shares excerpts from notable physics papers and books which support Moving Dimensions Theory, or which ask questiosn or pose problems that are solved via MDT

Here is a passage from page 350 of John A. Wheeler's 1998 GEONS, BLACK HOLES, AND QUANTUM FOAM:

"Theory suggests also that black holes of incredibly small size, at the scale of the so-called Planck length, are forming and dissolving all the time by the trillion, with the dimenions of every elementary particle. At that scale, with spacetime churned into quantum foam, space and time in fact lose their meaning. When we blend the two greatest theories of the twentieth century, quantum theory and general relativity, we have to conclude that time is a secondary concept, a derived concept. It has meaning only at a scale large compared with the Planck length and only well away from black holes, the Big Bang, or the Big Crunch. It is not a river that rolls inexorably forward. It is not a lake across which we glide. It is more to be compared with tempertature or with entropy, concepts that take their meaning only when large numbers of particles are involved. Time, we conclude, is of statistical origin, valid only when dimensions are large enough and when conditions are not too extreme." --page 350 of John A. Wheeler's 1998 GEONS, BLACK HOLES, AND QUANTUM FOAM

Moving Dimensions Theory, with its simple postulate of a fourth expanding dimension and equation: dx4/dt=ic agrees with this passage. Time is an emergent phenomenon, or, as Wheeler stipulates, "time is a secondary concept, a derived concept." Ergo time is not the fourth dimension, but it is a phenomenon that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. Now as this expansion distributes locality, it is also the source of quantum mechanics' probability. It is why a photon, which travels by surfing the fourth expanding dimension, has an equal chance of being detected anywhere upon the surface of a spherically-symmetric wavefront which expands at the rate of c.

All of relativity, and its implications including E=mc^2, is derived from MDT in my paper, beginning with a 4D universe in which the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c: dx4/dt=ic. This invartiant expansion, underlying all motion and entropy, unfreezes time, and shows that time, as a "secondary concept, a derived concept" naturally emerges from a deeper physical reality--a fundamental invariance: dx4/dt=ic which is the deeper source of the velocity of light's invariance: c, and all the dualities--space/time, mass/enegry, wave/particle. And too it shows that nonlocality and quantum mechanics' probabilistic nature naturally emerges from this same deeper principle, as the fourth dimension inherits nonlocal properties via its expansion, which grants all particles nonlocal wave-like properties.

So it is that the EPR Paradox is resolved as we are liberated from Einstein's/Godel's block universe. MDT provides a fundamental framework for all of QM and relativity, while also granting us free will and explaining entanglement and length contraction with the exact same principle, from which time, and all its assymmetries, naturally emerges.

Well, thanks again for all the feedback! I have short excerpts from a couple dozen books and original papers that I am assembling, all of which support MDT. If you should come across anything, I would be grateful!

In addition to Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on Relativity, a book I would highly recommend, with a lot of the original papers, is:

Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics) (Paperback)

by John Archibald Wheeler (Author), Wojciech Hubert Zurek (Author)

Read Feynman, Eisntein, Bohr, Wheeler, and Godel! So many mysterious entities that inspired and exalted them almost seemed banned from today's common discourses on physics. Although they all "stood upon the shoulders of giants," back then physics was rooted more in simple truths, humble honety, and rugged individualism, all guided by an inspired sense of wonder.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." --Einstein

Yes--as we know so very little, it means that so very much remains mysterious to those who open their eyes, look, and ask, and thus opportunity abounds for "true art and all science!"

Best,

Dr. E :)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Thanks for the words Clinton.

Yes--I have enjoyed your paper and am currently re-reading it. I love your thesis, "Third, the importance of experimental empirical information for an objective world-view is stressed with examples." Yes! Too many have forgotten that physics ought be about *physical* reality.

I also enjoy the words in your appendix on page 9 of your paper, ". . ....

view entire post

Thanks for the words Clinton.

Yes--I have enjoyed your paper and am currently re-reading it. I love your thesis, "Third, the importance of experimental empirical information for an objective world-view is stressed with examples." Yes! Too many have forgotten that physics ought be about *physical* reality.

I also enjoy the words in your appendix on page 9 of your paper, ". . . measurement is performed by nature serving in the role of an observer in the retinal rod, more specifically the rhodopsin molecule, leading to a stochastic discontinuous nonlinear objective wave function collapse. This means that while neither the brain, mind or consciousness play any subjective role in the collapse of the wave function, they do play a role in analyzing and interpreting the information presented to them. . .We observe nothing, rather observed or collapsed information of an objective nature is presented to us in a sequential fashion by nature for our subjective analysis or interpretation. Our supposed role as an observer is just an illusion!"

Yes! When a photon blackens a grain on a photographic plate, or when it warms the pavement, it does so independent of any observer. There is a *physical* reality independent of observers! This is also what Einstein's relativity ultimately states, and he actually wanted to call the theory the theory of *invariance*.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/invaria
nce.htm

"Albert Einstein was unhappy about the name "theory of relativity". He preferred "theory of invariance". The reason is that [one] cornerstone of his 1905 theory of relativity is that the measured velocity of light is the same (invariant) regardless of any relative motion between a laboratory and the source of light. What Einstein feared came to pass when the popular catchphrase of his theory became "everything is relative". It was snatched up by people not acquainted with the scientific context, who regarded the theory as evidence in support of their own social views. { Arthur Miller, from a letter in New Scientist }" --from http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/invariance.htm

Craig Rusbult goes on to write in Einstein's Theory of Invariance,

"In actual fact, the theory of relativity is anchored in absolutism — in the concrete of Einstein's two postulates: The velocity of light is a universal constant, and the laws of physics are constant. He described these postulates as principles of invariance. An insightful textual analysis of the introductory sections of the 1905 paper would have recognized that the two "postulates" specify unchanging principles that serve as the foundations of the theory. In fact, Einstein called his creation an "Invariententheorie," a theory of invariance. The name "theory of relativity" was coined later in a review by German physicist Max Planck. Einstein resisted that name for years, although he reluctantly bowed to peer pressure. The relativistic features of time and space that led to the term "theory of relativity" are derived from the principles of invariance." --from http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/invariance.htm Einstein's Theory of Invariance

So it is that both quantum mechanics and relativity describe an invariatiant *physical* reality that exists independent of us! And Moving Dimensions Theory proposes a new, more fundamental invariance underlying both relativity and quantum mechanics--an invariance that also accounts for entropy and time's arrows and assymetries in all realms: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions or dx4/dt = ic. MDT represents that kind of tehory that we have not seen for awhile--a simple postulate and equation reflecting a fundamental invariance underlying all change--a new postulate and equation exalting a novel feature of this universe that has hitherto remained unsung, and suddenly time is unfrozen and we are liberated from the block universe! Relativity, QM, and entropy are given a common foundational framework, and time in all realms is shown to be an emergent phenomenon.

Consider the photon. Measurement of its position relies on the collapse of a wavefunction--the irreversible localization of the photon's momenergy. When a photon is emitted, it is carried along by the fourth expanding dimension, which defines a nonlocal spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at the rate of c through the three spatial dimensions. The expanding fourth dimension is responsible for nonlocality--it "smears" locality throughout all of space, and hence the photon is ageless--it remains in the exact same place in the fourth dimension, no matter how far it travels, as it surfs the fourth expanding dimension. And hence entanglement--two initially-interacting photons remain fundamentally connected no matter how far apart they travel, as they yet inhabit a common locality that resulst because of the nonlocal expansion of the fourth dimension. And hence a photon's ageless (from relativity) and entanglement (from qm) derive from a common principle, which also presents a *physical* model for measurement, entropy, and time and its arrows in all realms.

So, so many physical entities and phenomena derive from the expansion of the fourth dimension, from qm's entanglement, nonlocality, and probabilistic nature, to time's arrows and assymetries in all realms, to entropy, to all of relativity which is derived from MDT in my paper.

So many cool things in your paper, Clintom, so thanks! I will be returing to it. And you're only twenty! Time is on your side, so seize the day--Carpe Diem! I remember John Wheeler spoke to all the freshmen physics majors at Princeton, and he told us that the time to start research is "now." And if we had questions, he suggested that we ask the grad students before we asked the professors, as the grad students were more likely to be on the cutting edge.

Well, honest curiosity is always on the cutting edge, so thanks for the paper and keep up the great work!

"Follow your bliss and don't be afraid, and doors will open where you didn't know they were going to be" -- Joseph Campbell

Best,

Dr. E :)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Thanks Clinton!

Great Einstein quotes! Hang in there & seek out professors who encourage creativity and independent thought--I was quite lucky to find John Wheeler and then a dissertation advisor who stated, "you can do anything, but you gotta do something," which led to the artificial retina project.

Yes--you would enjoy Joseph Campbell's writings...

view entire post

Thanks Clinton!

Great Einstein quotes! Hang in there & seek out professors who encourage creativity and independent thought--I was quite lucky to find John Wheeler and then a dissertation advisor who stated, "you can do anything, but you gotta do something," which led to the artificial retina project.

Yes--you would enjoy Joseph Campbell's writings too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Fa
ces

They just came out with a new edition!

We need a return to the classic, heroic, mythological spirit in science!

In the book Campbell talks about the Knights of the Round Table who all had to begin their "hero's journeys" by finding their own way through the forest. It was dishonorable to walk in someone else's path. And once in the forest, they would happen upon a white rabbit (Neo follows one in The Matrix), or an amulet, or a goddess (Luke Skywalker sees princess Leah after following R2D2--a modern white rabbit), who would "call them to adventure."

In so many ways the advancement of science follows the classic hero's journey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey

2 The Seventeen Stages of the Monomyth

2.1 Departure (or Separation)

Getting to college/leaving home. Or being fired from a job, or forced to work outside academia as a patent clerk. Joseph Campbell chose the woods of Woodstock, and the Great Books, over graduate school.

2.1.1 The Call to Adventure

Curiosity--Einstein wondering what it would be like to catch up with a light beam. & his happiest thought.

2.1.2 Refusal of the Call

People railing against relativity and QM, as well as Boltzman's s=klogw which is on his tombstone. The mob burning Bruno and the Inquisition forcing Galileo to recant his theory. Sometimes we internalize this mob mentality, and we fear to speak truth to power, and so we refuse the call, as did Jonah.

2.1.3 Supernatural Aid

Meeting a mentor. Feynman meeting Wheeler. Einstein meeting Planck/Minkowski. Wheeler calling upon you to begin research right "now."

2.1.4 The Crossing of the First Threshold

The courage to go beyond the mentor, with the mentor's guidance, or sometimes even against the mentor's beliefs, even though the mentor will eventually come back to help you out, as our parents so often do, and as Minkowski did for Einstein.

2.1.5 Belly of The Whale

Years of darkness, frustration, and exhaustion. Dead ends. Wrong turns. Exile--Dante penned the Inferno in Exile, and Einstein revolutionized physics while exiled from academia. Do not fear the darkness, for in the darkness one can better see one's own light.

2.2 Initiation

Finally finding the right path--getting underway. Einstein's two postulates & the principle of relativity. The quantum nature of light.

2.2.1 The Road of Trials

Meeting collaborators, overcoming obstacles, trusting in one's instincts. The exhausting work of calculations, research, and writing.

2.2.2 Mother as Goddess

Mother earth--the physical, empirical nature of the world which ultimately rules all physics.

2.2.3 Woman as Temptress

Following the wrong path by "beauty" or narcisism alone, like String Theorists and LQG. Narcissus staring at his reflection until he falls in.

2.2.4 Atonement with the Father

Einstein and Minkowski making peace, as Minkowski, Einstein's math teacher, provided the ultimate framework for relativity, even though Einsetin did not appreciate it at first, and Minkowski called Einstein a "lazy dog" when Einstein was Minkowski's student.

2.2.5 Apotheosis

Reaching one's full potential. Often comes after a "death," after an exile or firing, for one's ideals are immortal, as is E=mc^2.

2.2.6 The Ultimate Boon

Einstein's GR&SR. Boltzman's thermodynamics. Bruno's/copernicus's/Galileo's views.

2.3 Return

Coming on back with newfound knoweldge--Einstein's GR&SR. Boltzman's thermodynamics. Feynman's many paths. Moses coming down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments.

2.3.1 Refusal of the Return

Einstein refusing to accept quantum mechanics in his later years.

2.3.2 The Magic Flight

Somehow, even all of his wrong turns and mistakes seemed to lead towards triumph for Einstein in his "magic flight," as if his physical intuition transcended even the genius's physical grasp on reality.

2.3.3 Rescue from Without

Suddenly the cosmological constant is needed again, by a universe whose acceleration seems to be increasing.

2.3.4 The Crossing of the Return Threshold

It seems that only those physicists/artists/writers who part ways with the establishment ever return to exalt the establishment. It is a tragic irony that they are opposed at every step.

2.3.5 Master of Two Worlds

Einstein as a master of both Newtonian gravity and his superior forumlation found in GR.

2.3.6 Freedom to Live

Knowledge is augmented for all, and I would argue that freedom herself derives from the honest pursuit of Truth!

And so it is that we must return to teaching the Classic Mythologies, as well as the classic texts on physics, while encouraging students to hold ingenuity, curiosity, creativity, honor, and truth over political consensus-building.

And then, just as MDT liberates us from frozen time and a block universe, theoretical physics may be liberated from its frozen state.

Well, I think the hero's journey would be a fun structure/platform/metaphor for a book studying the lives of the epic scientists.

Best,

Dr. E

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Dr. E,

I had another thought about your MDT.

In my paper Nature is *coincident* to our *subjective moments* through the here-and-now. If the here-and-now is physically defined as the photons impinging upon our sense modalities (i.e., the surface of the expanding fourth dimension), we can then infer that between the here-and-now and the cosmic background radiation (the limit of...

view entire post

Dr. E,

I had another thought about your MDT.

In my paper Nature is *coincident* to our *subjective moments* through the here-and-now. If the here-and-now is physically defined as the photons impinging upon our sense modalities (i.e., the surface of the expanding fourth dimension), we can then infer that between the here-and-now and the cosmic background radiation (the limit of Nature) we have the radius of *physical* reality. Perhaps this radius can then be used to implement the so-called holographic principle...

As per Paul Davies, in his paper (Davies, P. C. W. (2007) “The Implications Of A Cosmological Information Bound For Complexity, Quantum Information And The Nature Of Physical Law,” Fluctuation and Noise Letters, 7, L391.), this information bound could then be used to constrain Nature (the laws of physics).

" . . . linking the present with the past via quantum measurement is part and parcel of standard quantum mechanics, and can even be demonstrated experimentally, although so far only over very short time scales. This backwards-in-time effect cannot be used to send information into the past, or to change the past, but it does constrain the past to conform to the present.

So can the 'retro-causation' aspect of quantum physics explain why the laws of physics are fine-tuned for life? Not in the usual formulation, no. Although quantum mechanics requires the presence of many alternative pasts, every allowed history develops over time in conformity with the same laws of physics. The differences come about purely from inherent quantum uncertainty, not from any variations in the laws of physics as such. What we would like to explain is why the laws themselves are bio-friendly, thus permitting at least some quantum histories containing observers.

To do so, we would need to find some way of applying the general principle linking future to past through quantum observations to the laws of physics themselves. Until now, such an application would have been meaningless, because the laws were regarded as fixed and infinitely precise. But treating the laws as cosmic software, with an inherent flexibility, neatly lends itself to the task.

Observations made throughout the entire duration of the universe can contribute to fashioning the form of the laws [at the cosmic background radiation] . . . when they were still significantly malleable. Thus the potential for future life acts like an attractor, drawing the emerging laws towards a bio-friendly region of the available parameter space. In this way, life, mind and cosmos form a self-consistent explanatory loop.

For four hundred years, science has been based on the implicit belief that the laws of nature are themselves supernatural, and thus off limits to scientific inquiry. The time has come to challenge this fundamental assumption and seek a natural physical mechanism [the physical definition of the here-and-now] that enables the universe to generate its own bio-friendly laws.

In the eternal quest to explain life, the universe and everything, it could be that life explains the universe even as the universe explains life. Which pretty much covers everything."

- Paul Davies (http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1479)

CKM

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Thanks for this CKM.

A great book you must get your hands on is: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-P
hysics/dp/0691083169

Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics) (Paperback)

by John Archibald Wheeler

This book was in my freshman dorm at Princeton--the only physics book in the little library/study room. And so I picked...

view entire post

Thanks for this CKM.

A great book you must get your hands on is: http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-P
hysics/dp/0691083169

Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Series in Physics) (Paperback)

by John Archibald Wheeler

This book was in my freshman dorm at Princeton--the only physics book in the little library/study room. And so I picked it up! Then, a few days later, I heard Wheeler speak, and I saw the book again and realized it was that same Wheeler!

In the book you will find the origins of many of the ideas you speak of above, although those ideas have perhaps been taken a bit far, and are a bit speculative. A similar thing happened with relativity, which people have used to speculate about time travel into the past and wormholes, which are safe from experimental tests. Had they only noticed that Einstein never stated that time is the fourth dimension, but rather that he wrote x4=ict, inspired by Minkowski in his 1912 paper. As t advances, the fourth dimension expands at the rate of ic, distributing locality and fathering time and quantum phenonema, as well as relativity and entropy. And as photons, by which we measure time and distance, are but matter trapped in the expanding dimension, time inherits properties of the fourth dimension in relativity's mathematics, but time is not the fourth dimension.

Einstein stated, "I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it," and I agree!

Tautological, anthropic, circular arguments are hard to lose, but too, they are hard to win. The universe is the way it is because it has to be the way it is to support us might or might not confuse cause and effect, and thus I don't often get involved in such debates. Also, the universe is the way it is because we measure it, and our meausurements affect the actual laws might be giving us a bit too much credit. Also, how can we test it? What are the physical postulates and equations that this line of thinking leads to?

Read http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-P
hysics/dp/0691083169 and Einstein's, Bohr's, Schrodenger's, Pauli's, Newton's, Dirac's, Maxwell's, Feynman's original papers/works/books, and you will see they did not quite think this way.

It seems that the higher forms of physics have ever been advanced by a quest for Truth with a capital T, that Timeless, objective, eternal Truth.

"Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity." Albert Einstein

That would be the same eternity Dante, Shakespeare, and William Blake wrote for:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand

And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,

Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand

And Eternity in an hour.

MDT longs for that heroic age of physics, whence simple postulates and equations strove to expose, discover, define, and express deeper aspects of our reality. The proposition that the fourth dimension is moving and expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions is no small proposition. In many ways MDT is bold, but yet, if the purpose of physics is to make everything as simple as possible but not moreso, if the purpose of physics is to unify disparate *physical* phenomena with a common *physical* model, if the purpose of physics is to present simple postualtes and equations representing a fundamental *physical* reality, then Moving Dimensions Theory is far more humble than String Theory, LQG, and speculative philosophies concerning our influence on the laws of nature, as MDT humbles itself before QM, entropy, free will, and relativity--it humbles itself before our empirical reality which presents us with quantum entanglement, nonlocality, relativity, entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries. MDT humbles itself before Einstein's 1912 Manuscipt on Relativity, Godel's problems with time in relativity, and the EPR Paradox. From MDT's simple postulate and equation, all of relativity can be derived, and all the dualities (time/space, energy/matter, wave/particle) can be acocunted for with a common model. And too, MDT liberates us from the block universe and grants us free will, by simply stating that Einstein and Minkowski had it right--away back when they wrote x4 = ict, implying that the fourth dimension must be moving relative to the three spatial dimensions and dx4/dt = ic.

Imagine an undergraudate program in which one read all the original papers! Or at least where the original papers were regularly brought in! Imagine textbooks that regularly included excerpts form the original papers! This is surely something to work towards! We can perhaps begin with a website or two--hey--perhaps this is what an MDT website could accomplish.

One of the things I enjoyed about your paper, CKM, is your wide, solid range of references! And how you wove them all together in something new. You have a scholar's soul, so keep it up!

You will love this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Prince
ton-Physics/dp/0691083169

Best,

Dr. E :)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello CKM,

I agree with what you write, "We do not measure the universe. Nature preforms measurement in our sense modalities. All measurement can be traced back to this *real* measurement. And we do not need to test it—we need only to live it—reality is what it is."

Yes--Feynman was fairly prophetic in predicting the era dominated by String Theory and LQG and other "ironic" forms of...

view entire post

Hello CKM,

I agree with what you write, "We do not measure the universe. Nature preforms measurement in our sense modalities. All measurement can be traced back to this *real* measurement. And we do not need to test it—we need only to live it—reality is what it is."

Yes--Feynman was fairly prophetic in predicting the era dominated by String Theory and LQG and other "ironic" forms of physics: "We are very lucky to be living in an age in which we are still making discoveries... The age in which we live is the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature, and that day will never come again. It is very exciting, it is marvelous, but this excitement will have to go." - Richard Feynman, in *The Character of Physical Law*, 1965

Yes, it seems that some of the excietment has dimmed over the last thirty years, culminating in this episode of Big Bang Theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOwS0N3sX_M

And that is why we need to return to the "heroic spirit," as suggested by Achilles in The Iliad: "As I detest the doorways of Death, I detest that man who hides one thing. in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another."

All too often these days it seems people speak forth one thing while hiding in their hearts another, in an attempt to fool the lay public and sometimes even themselves and their peers, who may actually be easier to fool than the layman. But I would argue that the advancement of physics relies upon a rigorous honesty and a holding of physical truth over politics, grants, and team sports.

And while Feynman has been right over the last thirty or so years, perhaps science is not yet over--perhaps there are yet simple aspects of this universe that have remained unsung--simple physical characteristics which unify diverse phenomena in physical postulates and equations, such as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. Perhaps string theorists and LQGers have not been asking the right questions.

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein

Einstein stated that curiosity is more important than knowledge, but all too often modern physicists forget to ask fundamental questions. Below is a list of foundational questions asked and answered by a simple theory that answers each and every question with: "Because the Fourth Dimension is Expanding Relative to the Three Spatial Dimensions: dx4/dt=ic"

1. Why is light’s velocity a constant c?

2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?

3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?

4. Why does a photon, which travels at c, not age?

5. Why does a photon’s spherically symmetric path define simultaneity—a locality in the fourth dimension?

5. Why are energy and mass equivalent? Why E=mc^2?

6. Why do all of time’s arrows point in the same direction—towards dissipation, decoherence, and entropy?

7. Why do so many physicists say time is the fourth dimension, when Einstein never said x4 is time, but instead said x4 = ict?

8. Why can matter can appear as energy or mass?

9. Why is it that when matter appears as pure energy, it propagates at c through space?

10. Why does all matter have particle—local—and wave—nonlocal—properties?

11. Why does all energy have particle—local—and wave—nonlocal—properties?

12. Why is it that when matter appears as stationary mass it propagates at c through the fourth dimension?

13. Why is it that when matter appears as energy, it propagates at c through the three spatial dimensions?

14. Why is it that to move at c through space is to stand still in the fourth dimension?

15. Why is it that to move at c through the fourth dimension is to stand still in space?

16. Why is it that all objects move at but one speed through space-time—c?

17. Why is the universe expanding?

18. Why does radiation expand outwards, but not inwards?

19. Why do we see retarded waves, but not advanced?

19. Why is it that entropy imitates the general motion of all radiation and the universe’s expansion—a spherically-symmetric expanding wave?

20. Why is it that Huygens’ Principle, which underlies all reality ranging from QED to Feynman’s many-paths, to classical physics, state that every point of a spherically-expanding wavefront is in turn a spherically-expanding wavefront?

21. Why are all photons described by a spherically-expanding wavefront propagating at c?

22. Why is it that two initially-interacting photons remain entangled, no matter how far they travel apart?

23. Why is it that two initially-interacting photons remain the exact same age, no matter how far they travel apart?

24. Why is it that Young’s double-slit experiments show that mass and energy have nonlocal wave properties?

25. Why is it that the collapse of the wave function is immediate in the photoelectric effect?

26. Why is there no way for an object to gain velocity without being reduced in length via relativistic length contraction?

27. Why does a photon trace out a null vector through space-time?

28. Why does time’s arrow point in a definitive direction?

29. Why does entropy increase?

30. Why do Moving clocks run slow?

31. Why is time travel into the past impossible?

32. Why does free will exist?

33. Why is it that time is not frozen—-how come the block universe does not exist? Why do we have free will?

34. Why does a photon’s probabilistic wavefront travel at c?

45. Why is the velocity of quantum entanglement c? Why is it that only initially interacting particles can yet be entangled? Why is it that they must first share a common locality or origin, in order to share an entangled nonlocality when tehy are separated?

36. Why is it that in Schroedinger’s equation, the first derivative with respect to the fourth dimension is proportional to the second derivative with the respect to the three spatial dimensions? Any change in position in the fourth expanding dimension is an acceleration in the three spatial dimensions.

37. Why is it that a photon emitted from the sun is redshifted as it travels away? It's wavelength appears longer as it is measured against space that is less-stretched. A photon inherits the local geometry of the spacetime where it was emitted.

38. Why do clocks in gravitational fields run slow?

39. Why are photons redshifted as they move away from massive objects, and blueshifted as they move towards them?

40. Why the conservation laws? Why does an object maintain its rotation in space time, unless acted upon by an exterior force?

41. Why is the velocity of every object through space-time c?

42. Why is it that the only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions?

43. Why is it that the only way to remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c relative to the fourth dimension?

44. Why does a photon have zero rest mass, and how does zero rest mass imply the velocity of light? None of the object’s matter exists in the three spatial dimensions, but only in the fourth expanding dimension.

45. Why time's arrows?

46. Why time's assymetries?

47. Why entropy?

Firstoff, imagine a universe where one was allowed to ask such questions; instead of having to engage in groupthink mathematics and snarky politics for tenure; while bringing the advancement of theoretical physics to a halt for the last thirty years or so. And then imagine if there was one simple principle underlying and unifying all these questions and clues with a fundamental physical model. That would be MDT: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

dx4/dt = ic

The fourth dimension expands at the rate of c.

The fourth dimension is nonlocal via its expansion.

Entropy results as the local becomes nonlocal—as a point, or compactified sphere, of the fourth expanding dimension expands in a spherically-symmetric manner, dragging all of entirety along with it.

Quantum Mechanics’ nonlocality and entropy are inextricably linked, as the fourth dimension expands at c, and carries photons and particles apart.

Photons surf the fourth expanding dimension.

Energy is but matter trapped on the fourth expanding dimension. Hence E=mc^2.

All matter has vast potential for energy, if only it is rotated into the fourth expanding dimension.

General Relativity freezes the fourth dimension, whereas quantum mechanics is built upon its flux—hence the differential operators.

Entropy and Huygens’ principle rest upon the fourth expanding dimension, as do all photons which surf its expanding wavefront.

Nonlocality arises because the fourth dimension is nonlocal as it expands.

Simultaneity is relative because our measurement of time is relative to our propagation with respect to the fourth expanding dimension.

Time, as measured in our watches and perceived in the stored order of our memories, is not the fourth dimension, but a phenomenon that emerges because a fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, caryring the photons in our time-measuring instruments and clocks.

The block universe does not exist, as the past is but a memory of a state that is long since gone.

Wave interference arises because of probability interference, and probability is defined by the expansion of the fourth dimension, which distributes the locality of a dimension upon an spherically-symmetric wavefront, where all points yet are one point in that dimension; until the wave is measured, and the particle is localized in the three spatial dimensions.

All motion requires that an object have a component in the source of all motion—the fourth expanding dimension. Hence all moving objects are foreshortened, and the faster they move, the more they are foreshortened in the three spatial dimensions, as they are rotated into the fourth expanding dimension.

And the great thing about MDT is that in addition to providing a *physical* model for entropy, nonlocality, and time's arrows and assymetries in all relams, all of relativity may be derived from its simple postulate and equation:

Consider a 4D universe: x1, x2, x3, x4, where x4 is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c described with dx4/dt = ic. Ergo relativity.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello CKM,

Love the closing paragraph of the eloquent letter you attached above!

"Many more days have passed and my hands have built quite a few devices. My experiences here have played no small role in my life, and will no doubt continue to shape how I conduct my own inquiries. “Philosophy begins with wonder,” as Socrates proclaimed. In principle one could ignite awe with...

view entire post

Hello CKM,

Love the closing paragraph of the eloquent letter you attached above!

"Many more days have passed and my hands have built quite a few devices. My experiences here have played no small role in my life, and will no doubt continue to shape how I conduct my own inquiries. “Philosophy begins with wonder,” as Socrates proclaimed. In principle one could ignite awe with theoretical ‘parallel universes,’ but, I now realize that, in practice, it is our mission as scientists to unveil the shroud of ignorance that envelops the human condition—with objective truth."

And your sentiment, "In principle one could ignite awe with theoretical ‘parallel universes,’ but, I now realize that, *in practice*, it is our mission as scientists to unveil the shroud of ignorance that envelops the human condition—with *objective truth*." You are twenty years old, but right here you have penned the footnote, as well as the opening paragraph, to 99% of modern articles on science.

Yes! And Leonardo Da Vinici agreed!

Ideals must be rendered real via *action*.

Check out all the quotes in the lead graphic of the Mona Lisa here:

http://herosjourneyrenaissance.org/

"I have been impressed iwth the urgency of doing. Knowing is not enough. Being willing is not enough. We must do." --Leonardo da Vinci

"All virtue is summed up in dealing justly." --Aristotle Action, always action is required, as Bogle states.

"There's a difference between knowing the path and walking it." --Morpheus from The Matrix

"How often is science improved, and turned into new directions by non-scientific influences! it is up to us, it is up to the citizens of a free society to either accept the chauvinism of science without contradiction or to overcome it by the counterforce of public action." --Paul Feyerabend

Math can be very pretty, but Einstein reminds us that physicists ought pursue *physics,* founded in a physical reality--“Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose.”"

"It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of those five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does not manifest itself." –Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest. Just think what Einstein would have said about entire parallel universes we cannot see!

With an heroic spirit, MDT takes us back to origin of modern physics--to the original papers on relativity and QM, and it humbles itself upon that mountaintop. And when it comes on down, off the shoulders of relativity and QM's giants, MDT presents us with a fundamental view of reality that conforms to all experimental evidence, while not only resolving the paradoxes of the non-locality of the EPR effect and seemingly frozen time in Godel’s block universe, but also unifying the resolution of both physical curiosities within a simple physical postulate--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. In a sense, this is the first theory to predict QM's nonlocality and entanglement, by postulating that the fourth dimension is inherently nonlocal via its expansion--an empirical fact that the timeless, ageless, nonlocal photon agrees with, as the photon surfs the fourth expanding dimension. And not only does MDT predict this, but it also provides a *physical* model for entropy and time and all its arrows and assymetries throughout all realms. And finally, all of relativity may be derived from MDT's simple postulate, as it is in my paper--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions--dx4/dt = ic. A postulate and an equation representing a novel *physical* feature of our universe--a fourth expanding dimension--and the natural, subsequent prediction of all of relativity, qm's nonlocality, entropy, time's arrows and assymetries in all realms, and quantum entanglement.

Best,

Dr. E

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Well, no man is an island, and physics has ever been advanced by cordial conversation in the context of rigorous honesty and a humble acknowledgement of empirical facts. Einstein and Bohr disagreed often, but yet they had a deep respect for one-another, and I highly recommend the perusal of their converstations! Where would be be without the disagreements between Einstein and Minkowski, between...

view entire post

Well, no man is an island, and physics has ever been advanced by cordial conversation in the context of rigorous honesty and a humble acknowledgement of empirical facts. Einstein and Bohr disagreed often, but yet they had a deep respect for one-another, and I highly recommend the perusal of their converstations! Where would be be without the disagreements between Einstein and Minkowski, between Bohr and Einstein, and between Pauli and just about everybody? Contrast their exalted dialogues to the snarky dialogues in the modern string-LQG wars, and the perhaps even more troubling complete *lack* of dialogue for topics and approaches transcending those two "theories" which might not even be successful theories after all.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

And yet today's science is dominated by "communal" theories bolstered by multi-million-dollar media teams. And again, these theories aren't really theories. They are often merely "not even wrong."

Planck also wrote, "Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, daß ihre Gegner überzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erklären, sondern vielmehr dadurch, daß ihre Gegner allmählich aussterben und daß die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut geworden ist."

Translation: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Once upon a time new theories were opposed by established scientists and established science. But today, new theories are mostly opposed by established bureaucracies and established bureaucrats, which have done little, if anything, to advance or contibute to actual science. So it's more akin to Galileo standing before the Inquisition.

It seems too many have forgotten the Hippocratic Oath--"first, do no harm."

Perhaps we ought contemplate one for scientists!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath_for
_Scientists

So, in light of all this, CKM, I'm thankful for this conversation and to fqxi for providing this forum which brought us togetehr!

MDT provides opportunities for novel research programs and curriculums--for new directions and exalted pursuits in physics, philosophy, and knowledge--based upon the foundational works of physics. And on a deeper level, the "heroic spirit" the program exalts could find use across all realms in academia and throughout our economy, in which far, far too many people profit by saying one thing and doing another--activities which have lead to our current crisis.

MDT predicts all of relativity from a simple postulate and equation that also provides *physical* model for entropy, time, and all its arrows, quantum entanglement and nonlocality, and all the dualities--space/time, energy/mass, and wave/particle. Not bad for one small equation: dx4/dt = ic, which offers a *physical* unification across all realms of physics, tying together entities as diverse as quantum entanglement and the timelessness of the photon, while presenting insight into a novel physical facet of our universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Science is more of an art than a science, and it always seems to advance in manners never before anticipated by the establishment, as Planck stated. One cannot legislate, nor vote on, nor dictate the advancement of science by fiat. "One cannot pray a lie," as Mark Twain once said.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

And again we see the primacy of the honest individual in the classic, epic hero's journey!

"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man." --Joseph Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

And the Nobel Laureate eocnomist F.A. Hayek agrees!

"The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for “conscious” control or “conscious” planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme—while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." –F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

Well, thanks again for the exalted dialogue CKM.

With our newfound freewill provided by MDT, which liberates us from the block universe while llowing us to keep all of relativity, we can become those things we seek!

Best,

Dr. E :)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

A review of Elliot “Dr. E” McGucken’s “Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics”:

In this essay, McGucken claims that all of physics, including all of quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and a large part of cosmology, including universal expansion and the Big Bang, follow from one line that appears in a 1912 paper by Einstein: “x4 = ict” (the...

view entire post

A review of Elliot “Dr. E” McGucken’s “Time as an Emergent Phenomenon: Traveling Back to the Heroic Age of Physics”:

In this essay, McGucken claims that all of physics, including all of quantum mechanics, relativity, thermodynamics, and a large part of cosmology, including universal expansion and the Big Bang, follow from one line that appears in a 1912 paper by Einstein: “x4 = ict” (the Lorenz transformation for the 4th dimension of space-time), which McGucken rewrites as “dx4/dt = ic”. From this, he concludes pretty much everything else in the universe.

Some observations by the careful reader of this essay start planting seeds of suspicion on McGucken’s grasp of elementary math. For example, on page 7 he spends about half a page trying to show that the integration of the relation dx4/dt = ic with respect to t results in x4 = ict, a “feat” that any year-12 high-school student would regard as obvious and not worth showing. Worse, McGucken performs a “crime” that any 1st-year college student of calculus is warned to avoid: he throws away the constant of integration, because it doesn’t suit his purpose! Specifically, McGucken writes: “Dropping the arbitrary constant, we get...” But constants of integration, we learn in math, are not to be dropped like unwanted fruits of illicit love affairs! If they appear in physics, they must have a physical explanation, otherwise there is something wrong with the idea of integration. And, indeed, there is something *very* wrong with McGucken’s idea of taking the derivative with respect to time in Einstein’s x4 = ict. The problem is, x4 = ict is *not* a physical equation, such as F = m·a, which connects different physical quantities; it is a *transformation of coordinates* (part of the Lorenz system of transformations), and as such, it is meaningless to try and find its derivative on both sides. The symbol x4, which also appears as t´ in other versions of Lorenz transformations, represents *time*. Thus, t´ = ict means this: if you want to find the new 4th coordinate, t´, of a point (x´, y´, z´, t´) in an inertial frame of reference that moves with a given uniform speed relative to another point (x, y, z, t) in another inertial frame of reference, then multiply t by ic, and this will give you the fourth coordinate of the point (or 4d-event, as is usually called). Einstein would often write (x1, x2, x3, x4) instead of (x´, y´, z´, t´), to emphasize that the four coordinates of space-time are more similar to each other than our choice of letters, x, y, z, t, tricks us to believe -- that’s all that there is between the symbol x4 and the concept of time: x4 *is* time, it’s the new time-coordinate.

But instead of realizing that t´, or x4, is the Lorenz-transformed temporal coordinate of a 4d-event, McGucken proceeds to differentiate both sides of this transformation with respect to time t. In essence, he takes the derivative of time with respect to time on the left side, and finds that it is (surprise-surprise) constant. Thus, instead of interpreting x4, or t´, as the transformed temporal (4th) coordinate in space-time, McGucken makes the ad hoc interpretation that x4 is *another* dimension, not the temporal one, which “moves” at speed c. But if it is another dimension, how can it be related with time t through a constant such as ic? Multiplying a dimension by a constant does not result in another dimension, but in a modification of the *metric* that returns the distance between points in the space (space-time, in our case) that includes that dimension. Specifically, having the factor ic in front of t, implies that when we compute the distance d² = x² + y² + z² + (ict)², then we get d² = x² + y² + z² - c²t², because i² = -1, a fact known by every child in the kindergarten. Thus, the minus sign in front of c²t² results in the well-known Minkowskian metric, rather than the Euclidean one, d² = x² + y² + z² + t², otherwise known as Galilean, because it is suitable in Galilean (or Newtonian) physics, which treats space-time as Euclidean. McGucken, instead of realizing that the transformation t´ = ict results in the Minkowskian metric, in which “circles” (i.e., equidistant points from a given point) are hyperbolas satisfying the equation d² = s² - t² (rather than true circles in the Euclidean metric, which satisfy the equation d² = s² + t²), imagines an essentially Euclidean geometry for the universe, which he assumes to be a 4d-sphere that expands radially at the speed of light, the “3d-surface” of which is our familiar 3d space. McGucken’s “time” is quintessentially Newtonian, absolute, independent of space.

Moreover, as hard as McGucken tries to rid himself of the idea that time is the fourth dimension, he fails to do so, because a 3d-sphere that expands in time does not expand “along an imaginary 4th dimension”, but *in time*. That is, each point within such an expanding sphere is adequately described by four coordinates: x, y, z (the 3d-spatial ones), and t, the time of “now” of the point in that sphere. With his description, McGucken brings evidence that he doesn’t understand very well the concept of dimension.

Further, the idea that 3d-space is spherical, i.e., closed along any direction, does not follow from anything in McGucken’s essay. Space could be infinite (open), in one, two, or all three dimensions, and still expanding in size (and still with a wrong Euclidean geometry, as per McGucken’s essay). McGucken’s conception of 3d-space as spherical is an arbitrary axiom of his, but he doesn’t say so explicitly.

There are more points in this essay that cause the reader to question McGucken’s grasp of even the most elementary math. For example, on p. 4 he states: “Consider two interacting photons that propagate in opposite directions, […] One second later, […] although separated by 372,000 miles, the photons yet inhabit a common locality in the fourth dimension”. This is McGucken’s “explanation” of quantum non-locality, for, he says, the photons might be 372,000 miles apart, but they stand at the same temporal coordinate, ergo... “It is as if the photons are yet side-by-side during the measurement.” This is like saying that, suppose we have two points on the familiar 2d-plane, with coordinates [1,2] and [3,2]. Although the points are separated by a distance of 2 units of length, they stand “side-by-side” because their y-coordinates are equal, and so one influences the other! Does McGucken understand the notion of *distance*? Or of “Cartesian coordinates”? Quite doubtful, given what he states.

Overall, the essay does not stand serious criticism. If this review was written, it was because McGucken appears to have persuaded some readers that he has something of significance to say, when in reality he is saying absolutely nothing. -- End of review.

---------------------------------------

This review was prepared by “Dr. F”, which is the first derivative of “Dr. E” with respect to time, i.e., d“Dr. E”/dt = “Dr. F”, where “F” stands for “Failure”. Pure, total, complete, and undoubted failure.

This review was also prepared with the knowledge that “Dr. E” (the integral of “Dr. F” minus some unwanted and dropped constants) will respond with yet another one of his loooooooooong “answers”, which he copy-pastes from texts he has already prepared, entirely irrelevant to the points made by his critics, and the purpose of which is to “bury” the critic’s comments under an avalanche of irrelevant text: “out of sight, out of mind,” according to Dr. E/McGucken. A prime example of this was when Dr. Nikolic (topic 259) asked Dr E to please answer with a single letter (a, b, c, or d) in a multiple-choice question, through which poor Dr. Nikolic was trying to figure out what Dr. E was really saying. Instead of a single letter, McGucken’s “answer” was another several-page-long irrelevant document, through which McGucken effectively “buried” Dr. Nikolic’s question. Taking into account this, the present post requests from the eloquent and speech-unrestrained Dr E to answer with exactly zero (0) letters to this post. If Dr. Nikolic’s 1 letter was multiplied by a factor of several thousand to become Dr E’s response, let us see what multiplying 0 by any factor means for Dr. E. Let us see at least Dr. E’s grasp of *this* rule of arithmetic.

Dr. F

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Hello Dr. F,

Thanks for the feedback. It seems you are arguing with yourself, as MDT agrees wholeheartedly with Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics.

Einstein stated "The Lord is subtle, but he is not malicious." Now you are being malicious, launching emotional ad-hominem attacks. Is that why you are refraining from using your real...

view entire post

Hello Dr. F,

Thanks for the feedback. It seems you are arguing with yourself, as MDT agrees wholeheartedly with Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics, and statistical mechanics.

Einstein stated "The Lord is subtle, but he is not malicious." Now you are being malicious, launching emotional ad-hominem attacks. Is that why you are refraining from using your real name?

You'll enjoy this post on Peter Woit's blog:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=894

"The
topic of blogs came up mainly in a section where Smolin discussed the ethical importance of scientists putting their name and reputation behind what they have to say about their science. He characterized anonymous criticism as one of the main reasons for the low signal/noise ratio and nasty environment of the comment sections of many blogs, describing this as far worse than anything he had encountered in his professional career, and something that is giving science a bad name. The theoretical physics group at Harvard in the 1970s was given as an example of about the worst it could get in academia. At the end of the discussion session, Paul Ginsparg took him to task about this, saying that he had been there too and it wasn’t that bad. I was there at the same time as both of them, and remember it as a rather unfriendly environment with a quite high arrogance level. But, with faculty like Coleman, Weinberg, Glashow, and postdocs like Witten, the talent and accomplishments of the people involved seemed to justify quite a bit of arrogance.

Ginsparg went on to agree with Smolin about anonymity on blogs, comparing trying to have a serious discussion in such an environment to trying to do so in a Fellini movie, being attacked by dwarves wearing masks." from--http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=894

I highly recommend Lee Smolin's speech:

http://pirsa.org/08090035/

"Abstract: I develop the idea that science works because scientists form communities defined by a set of ethical principles which, even if imperfectly applied, tend to lead to progress in our understanding of nature. While these communities have long been international, the combination of the internet with cheap airfare and easy migration of educated people makes scientists into 'global souls', in Pico Iyer's phrase. This opens up new opportunities and also new challenges for the thriving of scientific communities."

So in the spirit of science, please do provide us with your real name and credentials. When Bohr and Einstein debated, they didn't hide beyond cowardly anonimity to accuse one-another of not understanding arithmetic. What good can come of this childlike behavior?

You are extrapolating, augmenting, twisting, convoluting, and compromising MDT, and then castingating and impugning the straw man you erected. So congrats on that.

MDT has come not to deny the laws of the Founding Fathers of physics, but to unite them. MDT has come to liberate us from the block universe and unfreeze time, while providing a common *physical* model for all of relativity, quantum mechanics, entropy, and time's arrows and assymetries.

If you really believe what you are saying, could you please provide your real name and credentials?

Why do you not want us to know who you really are?

You write "x4 *is* time, it’s the new time-coordinate."

Actually, in his 1912 Manuscript, Einstein wrote x4 = ict. There is an equal sign in the above equation, and hence time's arrows and assymetries, entanglement, nonlocality, entropy, and relativity, which are all united in the *physical* framefork afforded by MDT.

All the above posts do pertain to MDT, and I am passionate about talking about it, but then again, this forum is devoted to MDT.

So now the question is, "Which forum is devoted to your novel theories regarding time and its arrows and assymetries, entropy, entanglement, nonlocality, relativity, qm, and a new interpretation of the classic double-slit experiment?"

MDT offers a simple postulate and equation, and an ensuing novel unification of diverse physical phenomena, as well as insight into a fundamental facet of our universe that has hitherto been unsung--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions--dx4/dt=ic. Expect the Inquisition, and expect them to be anonymous "dwarves wearing masks.

Best,

Dr. E

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Dr. E,

Why don’t you focus on the questions asked in my review regarding your incompetence in math? What difference does it make what my real identity is? I told you who I am: I am your derivative, your first derivative with respect to time: “Dr. F”. (Why, do you think you have the exclusive right to differentiate anything and everything?) I have no “forum devoted to [my] novel theories,”...

view entire post

Dr. E,

Why don’t you focus on the questions asked in my review regarding your incompetence in math? What difference does it make what my real identity is? I told you who I am: I am your derivative, your first derivative with respect to time: “Dr. F”. (Why, do you think you have the exclusive right to differentiate anything and everything?) I have no “forum devoted to [my] novel theories,” sorry for dashing your hopes. Nor do I have novel theories at all. I am just a passerby. Your derivative.

But is it really important to know *who* gives you the message? Isn’t it more important to look at *what* the message is, and answer to everybody, specifically and explicitly, each one of the cases of McGucken-math-salad that I pointed out in my review? I questioned your grasp of elementary math. For example, on page 7 you spent about half a page trying to show that the integration of the relation dx4/dt = ic with respect to t results in x4 = ict, a “feat” that any year-12 high-school student would regard as obvious and not worth showing. Worse, you performed a “crime” that any 1st-year college student of calculus is warned to avoid: you threw away the constant of integration, because it didn’t suit your purpose! Specifically, you wrote: “Dropping the arbitrary constant, we get...” But constants of integration, we learn in math, are not to be dropped like unwanted fruits of illicit love affairs! If they appear in physics, they must have a physical explanation, otherwise there is something wrong with the idea of integration. And, indeed, there is something *very* wrong with your idea of taking the derivative with respect to time in Einstein’s x4 = ict. The problem is, x4 = ict is *not* a physical equation, such as F = m·a, which connects different physical quantities; it is a *transformation of coordinates* (part of the Lorenz system of transformations), and as such, it is meaningless to try and find its derivative on both sides. The symbol x4, which also appears as t´ in other versions of Lorenz transformations, represents *time*. Thus, t´ = ict means this: if you want to find the new 4th coordinate, t´, of a point (x´, y´, z´, t´) in an inertial frame of reference that moves with a given uniform speed relative to another point (x, y, z, t) in another inertial frame of reference, then multiply t by ic, and this will give you the fourth coordinate of the point (or 4d-event, as is usually called). Einstein would often write (x1, x2, x3, x4) instead of (x´, y´, z´, t´), to emphasize that the four coordinates of space-time are more similar to each other than our choice of letters, x, y, z, t, tricks us to believe -- that’s all that there is between the symbol x4 and the concept of time: x4 *is* time, it’s the new time-coordinate. And t΄ = ict (or x4 = ict) is NOT AN EQUATION for Pete's sake, McGucken, it is a COORDINATE TRANSFORMATION. The Lorenz transformation. The equal sign (=) DOES NOT STAND FOR EQALITY of quantities. It could very well be an arrow, like this: t΄

view post as summary

reply to this thread

(Continuing from my previous post)

...

like this: t΄ ARROW ict. AND WE DON’T DIFFERENTIATE TRANSFORMATIONS. Understooded?

But instead of realizing that t´, or x4, is the Lorenz-transformed temporal coordinate of a 4d-event, you proceed to differentiate both sides of this transformation with respect to time t. In essence, you take the derivative of time with respect to...

view entire post

(Continuing from my previous post)

...

like this: t΄ ARROW ict. AND WE DON’T DIFFERENTIATE TRANSFORMATIONS. Understooded?

But instead of realizing that t´, or x4, is the Lorenz-transformed temporal coordinate of a 4d-event, you proceed to differentiate both sides of this transformation with respect to time t. In essence, you take the derivative of time with respect to time on the left side, and find that it is (surprise-surprise) constant. Thus, instead of interpreting x4, or t´, as the transformed temporal (4th) coordinate in space-time, you make the ad hoc interpretation that x4 is *another* dimension, not the temporal one, which “moves” at speed c. But if it is another dimension, how can it be related with time t through a constant such as ic? Multiplying a dimension by a constant does not result in another dimension, but in a modification of the *metric* that returns the distance between points in the space (space-time, in our case) that includes that dimension. Specifically, having the factor ic in front of t, implies that when we compute the distance d² = x² + y² + z² + (ict)², then we get d² = x² + y² + z² - c²t², because i² = -1, a fact known by every child in the kindergarten. Thus, the minus sign in front of c²t² results in the well-known Minkowskian metric, rather than the Euclidean one, d² = x² + y² + z² + t², otherwise known as Galilean, because it is suitable in Galilean (or Newtonian) physics, which treats space-time as Euclidean. You, instead of realizing that the transformation t´ = ict results in the Minkowskian metric, in which “circles” (i.e., equidistant points from a given point) are hyperbolas satisfying the equation d² = s² - t² (rather than true circles in the Euclidean metric, which satisfy the equation d² = s² + t²), imagine an essentially Euclidean geometry for the universe, which you assume to be a 4d-sphere that expands radially at the speed of light, the “3d-surface” of which is our familiar 3d space. Your “time” is quintessentially Newtonian, absolute, independent of space.

Moreover, as hard as you try to rid yourself of the idea that time is the fourth dimension, you fail to do so, because a 3d-sphere that expands in time does not expand “along an imaginary 4th dimension”, but *in time*. That is, each point within such an expanding sphere is adequately described by four coordinates: x, y, z (the 3d-spatial ones), and t, the time of “now” of the point in that sphere. With your description, you bring evidence that you doesn’t understand very well the concept of dimension.

Further, the idea that 3d-space is spherical, i.e., closed along any direction, does not follow from anything in your essay. Space could be infinite (open), in one, two, or all three dimensions, and still expanding in size (and still with a wrong Euclidean geometry, as per your essay). Your conception of 3d-space as spherical is an arbitrary axiom of yours, but you don’t say so explicitly.

There are more points in this essay that cause the reader to question your grasp of even the most elementary math. For example, on p. 4 you state: “Consider two interacting photons that propagate in opposite directions, […] One second later, […] although separated by 372,000 miles, the photons yet inhabit a common locality in the fourth dimension”. This is your “explanation” of quantum non-locality, for, you say, the photons might be 372,000 miles apart, but they stand at the same temporal coordinate, ergo... “It is as if the photons are yet side-by-side during the measurement.” This is like saying that, suppose we have two points on the familiar 2d-plane, with coordinates [1,2] and [3,2]. Although the points are separated by a distance of 2 units of length, they stand “side-by-side” because their y-coordinates are equal, and so one influences the other! Do you understand the notion of *distance*? Or of “Cartesian coordinates”? I am still expecting an answer.

Try to concentrate on “the beef”, McGucken. Just the beef.

Your derivative,

Dr. F

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Anonymous Coward,

If you had serious points to make, I imagine you would be able to do it without the snarky name-calling and childish attacks. Also, if you were proud of your name, you would use it. If you had faith in your words, you would put your name on them.

Your tone and tenor bring to mind atheme from Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics--physics has come to a standstill...

view entire post

Anonymous Coward,

If you had serious points to make, I imagine you would be able to do it without the snarky name-calling and childish attacks. Also, if you were proud of your name, you would use it. If you had faith in your words, you would put your name on them.

Your tone and tenor bring to mind atheme from Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics--physics has come to a standstill largely because of well-funded, established snarkers, who haven't exactly advanced physics themselves, but only built a mean-spirited bureaucracy that is closed to new ideas--a bureaucracy you seem to be a part of. So who are you?

You write, "What difference does it make what my real identity is?" It obviously makes a vast difference, as you are carefully concealing your identity, while launching snarky, childish, ad hominem attacks.

In the spirit of truth and science, please share your name and credentials, if you have any.

Your greatest critique of my paper is that MDT is too simple, too beautiful, too elegant.

Again, we would like to know your identity and program of research, so that we can better understand why you so detest simple theories based upon rock-solid precepts and principles.

"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." Albert Einstein

Did you know that the most quoted phrase from the most-perfomed play of all time is "To be or not to be, that is the question?" Are you also one of those snarky deconstructors of Shakespeare, who removed him from the academy for using such simple phrases--the most fundamental verb in our language--to be?

Beethoven's 9th is based on the first five notes of the simple C Major scale. Do you also detest this final symphony because it is so simple that it cannot possibly be good?

Must all physics be tied up in knots and non-theories, to please your anonymous demands? So man up and let us know your name and program of research, so that we might better understand your emotional attacks, snarky namecalling, and put-downs.

In your snarky mean-spiritedness, which I would not be surprised to see fqxi delete, you completely miss the greater glory of MDT. It is hard to imagine a true physicist leading with childish putdowns and unadulturated snark. You ought be grateful I am even responding, but it is easy to sing the virtues of MDT.

Relativity freezes time and consigns us to a block universe. MDT unfreezes time and liberates us from the block universe, while also providing a *physical* model for time and all its arrows and assyemtries, entropy, entanglement, nonlocality, and relativity--a relativity wherein time flows, just as it does in our universe.

What do you personally have against the flow of time? Why are you snarking the ageless, timeless photon with ad hominem attacks? Why does time stop at the speed of light? Does not time flow day in and day out? *Why* does time flow? Do we not witness time in all realms of physics? Does not time have a dominant direction and arrow? Do not two initially-interacting photons remain entangled, no matter how far they are separated? All these things can be seen to descend from a common, simple principle--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, distribuuting locality and fathering time.

One of the chilish contentions in your diatribes is that x4 = ict is not an equation.

Well, it has two sides and an equals sign. It equates two entities, and this action is from where the word "equation" derives. x4 = ict.

You also tell me that I break some law in taking the derivative of the equation with respect to t.

dx4/dt = ic

There.

I did it again. Are you going to dress up as an anonymous dwarf and attack me personally some more, so as to preserve the sanctity of your block universe and time travel fanatasies? Go ahead, make my day.

In his 1912 Manuscript, Einsetin wrote x4=ict, inspired in part by Minkowski. Ergo, as t progresses, x4 must move.

dx4/dt = ic

There--I just took the derivative again. Are you going to round up a posse of masked, anonymous snarkers and hang me for this crime?

If simplicity, beauty, elegance, novelity, and truth are crimes, then I am guilty. You and your posse of anonymous snarkers can try and force me to sign a paper stating that the fourth dimension does not move relative to the three spatial dimensions, but even if you overpower my hand and force it to move so as to form the words, I will yet speak and think, "but yet it--the fourth dimension--moves." "E pur si muove." All the anonymous masked dwarves in the world cannot stop the fourth dimension from moving, nor can they keep time and progress in the realm of theoretical physics frozen forever.

The dominant source of your vituperation, ad-hominem attacks, childish namecalling, and bitter emotion seems to be that MDT is *too* simple, *too* beautiful, *too* elegant.

Well, if we got rid of all simple, elegant physics, we'd be left with string theory and the other non-theories that I am betting you have devoted your life to, and are too embarrassed to admit to, which is why you refuse to man up and share your identity. Your cowardly behavior is a tragic part of the postmodern, unheroic age, where the Great Books and Classics have been deconstructed, and small souls seek to rule via anonymous snark and fiat.

So what role do you play in all this?

That is one reason we would all like to know your true identity and program of research. Hundreds of millions of dollars--billions of dollars--have been spent over the past thirty years in theoretical physics. And yet, there has been no progress.

Theoretical physics has come to a standstill, and I would suggest that it is the fault of close-minded, snarky individuals such as yourself, and furthermore, I would suggest that deep down you know this, and this is the ultimate reason you remain anonymous.

You go on and on to accuse MDT of failing at things it does not even attempt, while ignoring all the things it gets right--the unification of time's arrows and assymetries across all realms, the unification of the dualities (space/time, mass/energy, wave/particle), our liberation from frozen time and a block universe, an expalnation for entanglement and nonlocality, and a fundamental invariance underlying all of relativity. It are anonymous, embittered folks like you who would prefer to live in a block universe and frozen time and frozen physics, where all progress is outlawed by anonymous snarkers, and math is used not in a simple manner to emlighten and exalt, but to berate, bring down, and destroy that which one did not create.

So please do share your name, title, and program of research, if you wish to continue. Perhaps by using your real name, you won't descend into snarky namecalling, and ad hominem attacks against straw men you created, and you can concentrate on discussing physics and physical reality.



Dr. E

view post as summary

reply to this thread

You keep asking for my identity, Dr. E. But you failed to reply to the essence of the several counts, on the basis of which I charge that your essay violates high-school math. You only made a feeble attempt to answer *one* of those points, saying that, no, t´=ict is an equation, because “it has two sides and an equals sign”. This is another indicator of your detachment from even the most...

view entire post

You keep asking for my identity, Dr. E. But you failed to reply to the essence of the several counts, on the basis of which I charge that your essay violates high-school math. You only made a feeble attempt to answer *one* of those points, saying that, no, t´=ict is an equation, because “it has two sides and an equals sign”. This is another indicator of your detachment from even the most elementary math notation, because not every symbolism in math with an equals sign and two sides is an equation. But I’ll come back to this and answer it soon. First, I’d like to focus on a few other, interesting observations.

You accuse me of ad hominem attacks. Is it an ad hominen attack to point out not one, not two, but *five* points in which your essay violates high-school math and logical deduction? An ad hominem attack would be one in which I would be (I copy from the dictionary) “Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason”. But I appeal to logic and reason only when I point out at least *five* *points* in which your essay screws up high-school math. It’s not my fault if you read between the lines of my review and took my critique as an attack on your person! On the contrary, your insistence to learn my “true identity” betrays your passion to shift the discussion away from the essence, which is your mishandling of elementary math --more on that below-- and move it toward attacking my supposed “novel theories” (which I don’t have any). But this is a very common and well-known tactic of people like you: sweep the annoying questions under the rug, and shift the discussion to something else --anything would do. You have nothing you can find, because you don’t know who I am (and that’s why I won’t tell you, to prevent you from shifting the discussion). And so you keep repeating your mantras, hoping to bury away my obnoxious questions on your essay. But you won’t manage. UNTIL YOU ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ON THE SUBJECT, day in and day out, I’ll be there to remind you that you ought to reply, to concentrate on “the beef”. (I’ll get to the beef in a minute. Patience, Dr. E, patience. ;-) There are more “pearls of reasoning” worth mentioning in your previous posts.)

You wrote: “All the above posts do pertain to MDT, and I am passionate about talking about it, but then again, this forum is devoted to MDT.” But Dr. E, it doesn’t matter how passionate you are about supporting a scientific idea. Science is not based on passion, but on the experimental verification of ideas. We are not the Taliban in science, passionately supporting our false beliefs! If your idea is right, it will be proven right by experiment. If it’s wrong, it’ll be thrown into the dustbin of crackpot theories, no matter how many tons of ink you waste in preaching passionately for it.

You complained about my supposed misuse of blogs. Look who’s talking! You, sir, went to the blog of another author (Dr. Nikolic’s, topic 259), and after writing two or three trivial remarks on his essay, you went on expounding your magnificent “MDT theory” even there, causing noise and distraction, and shifting the topic from a discussion on his essay, to a monologue on your theory of everything --which, in my humble opinion, is a theory of nothing. I didn’t do anything like that sort of violation of ethics. It is *you* who did, and *you* must apologize. If “this forum is devoted to MDT”, then the other person’s forum is devoted to that person’s ideas, so why did you go and defile it, turning it into a monologue on your “MDT”?

Finally, I remind you once more that you *still* DIDN’T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS on the misuse of math on your part. Since you made that feeble attempt to answer only *one* of my points in your previous post, I’ll do you the favor and answer that now.

Here is why a Lorenz transformation (such as t´=ict, or x4=ict), is called a *transformation*, NOT an equation, and why, consequently, it is *meaningless* to differentiate it. (Warning to the casual reader: what you’re about to read is high-school math, perhaps year 11 or year 12; I apologize for having to explain such elementary concepts in this forum, but it is Dr. E’s essay that violates them, and in addition, he doesn’t realize that it does.)

Dr. E,

An equation in physics is some relation that connects two *different* physical quantities. For example, s = v·t, which relates space, velocity, and time. We can differentiate both sides of this equation with respect to time, and obtain a somewhat meaningful result: ds/dt=v, in other words, v (speed) is the first derivative of s (space) with respect to t (time). We can differentiate because the equation s = v·t describes a process that happens *in time* (e.g., a car moving), therefore, it is meaningful to ask: “How fast does it happen in time? What is the speed of it (e.g., of the car)?” That is the meaning of the first derivative with respect to time. Another example: water is dripping from a tap and is filling up a container. It is meaningful to ask: “How fast does the water fill up the container?” We can then differentiate the relation that connects the volume of water and time, and find the speed. Is this clear?

Now let’s go to coordinate transformations. Suppose I have a point on the xy-plane (the familiar 2D Cartesian plane). Say the point is (x, y). Now I want to rotate this point on the plane by angle theta around the origin, and obtain its new coordinates (x´, y´). So I write down the transformation relations:

x´ = x·cos(theta)

y´ = y·sin(theta)

In doing so, I provided two *transformations* of coordinates, not two equations of physics. More important, it is not a question how fast, or how slow, I do the rotation. In fact, there is no physical process at all in this transformation. It’s *not* a process by which point (x, y) “glides”, say, with some speed on the plane, and goes to its new location at (x´, y´). Nothing like that. Point (x, y) is converted instantaneously, and *mathematically* to its new coordinates. It’s like converting dollars to yen: you don’t ask how fast or slow the conversion takes place, nor do you pass smoothly from dollars to yen through a number of in-between currencies. You just go to the exchange booth and do it.

Ditto with the transformation t´=ic·t, which is the basis of your theory of everything. It tells us how to find the new temporal coordinate, t´, of a point in 4D space-time with new coordinates (x´, y´, z´, t´), given that that point has old coordinates (x, y, z, t). The transformation does not happen *in time*, but instantly, *mathematically*, because it is a mathematical computation of a new coordinate, like x´ = x·cos(theta), not a physical process that happens in time, and for which we could be legitimately asking “What is the *speed* by which it’s happening?” That question would be answered by finding the first derivative w.r.t. time. But a coordinate transformation is *not* a physical process. In my analogy with the rotation by angle theta, what corresponds to theta in the Lorenz transformation is the relative speed of the two concerned frames of reference.

Also, just like x is one of the coordinates, and the tick that we place on the left side of the transformation x´ = x·cos(theta) means “this is the new x coordinate”, similarly, t is one of the coordinates in the Lorenz system of transformations, and the tick we place on the left side in t´=ic·t means “this is the new time coordinate”. That you see t´ written as x4 does not make it a new dimension, it’s merely a renaming, a change of the name of a variable. Understooded, Dr?

Do you have anything to reply on the above, and only the above (the beef) “Dr. E”?

You would tell me again that I continue my “ad hominem attacks”. :-) But no rational reader will be fooled by your renewed attempt to shift the topic to something other than answering how you dare to differentiate a coordinate transformation, a non-physical process. (Let alone all the other points of math abuse that I mentioned in my review.) You’ll keep asking for my identity, having nothing more essential to say. By the way, Dr. E, my identity has been adequately given to you: I am your derivative, Dr. F. A derivative is sometimes marked with a tick, like this: (Dr. E)´. You could say, I am a tick of sorts. A tick on you, Dr. E. ;-) That answers your question, “So what role do you play in all this?” But stop being obsessed with who I am, and do focus on the *beef*: answer my criticisms!

So, you’d wish that my posts are removed from the forum? :-) (“In your snarky mean-spiritedness, which I would not be surprised to see fqxi delete[…]”) Ha-ha! :-) I don’t think so, Dr. E. “Out of sight, out of mind,” right Dr. E?

Answer my questions. How do you dare to differentiate w.r.t. time t´=ic·t, a coordinate transformation, a non-physical process! Answer!

Your derivative,

Dr. F

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello All,

Anonymous Coward,

The one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use...

view entire post

Hello All,

Anonymous Coward,

The one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use instead of logic and reason? Is it because you think that simple logic and reason is not enough, and that snarky namecalling and childish put-downs accomplish what your logic and reason cannot? Please focus on my questions here, and please answer, as I am answering your questions, even though you do not want to meet at high noon, but you prefer to catcall from behind a mask and shoot your opponent in the back, like a coward.

Niels Bohr had a lot to say about the Cowboy Code, and therein we can find insights as to why your behavior ultimately loses both on the cultural and scientific levels:

From: http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-ni
els-bohr.html

"The great Danish Physicist Niels Bohr, an avid Western film fan, wondered why in all the final shoot-outs, the hero shoots faster even if his adversary is the first to reach for his gun. Bohr asked himself if some physical truth might not explain this convention. He came to the conclusion that such a truth did indeed exist: the first to draw is the slowest because he decides to shoot, and dies. The second to draw lives because he is faster, and he is faster because he doesn't have to decide, he is decided. This brilliant discovery was the result of a whimsical empirical research: Bohr and his assistants went off to a toy shop, bought water pistols , and back in their laboratory duelled for hours and hours."

--http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-
niels-bohr.html

So it is that you decided to shoot first in the dark of night, from behind a mask like a lowly outlaw, and thus made my decision for me. EBohr--a Dane--had a great appreciation for the Cowboy--for honor and integrity--for Truth and Justice. Too, too many postmodern "physicists," such as yourself, have lost that honorable, noble spirit. The classic, epic showdown goes back 2800 years to The Odyssey, when Odysseus rides back on into his home, disguised as a beggar. Eventually he alone strings the bow and slays all the false suitors to his wife who kicked him around and spat on him--that eternal faceless, nameless mob which you, and all too many postmodern physicists, run with. But alas, they banned *The Odyssey* from the academy, and thus your behavior dominates.

What we have here is an evolution and paradigm shift, and deep down you sense it. That is the source for your emotional vitriol. If you were certain that I was wrong, you would calmly state so and let your Word--let your Name--let your Reason speak for themsleves. But as you are driven by emotions you do not understand, and as you do not have faith in your Word nor reason, and are embarrassed by it and/or your Name, you hide behind anonimity. Perhaps you do not wish to badmouth MDT, as you sense that in a year or so you may be seeking funding to support your MDT research.

A few major forces have ever driven the evolution of physics: The realization that math is actually telling us something about the *physical* nature of reality, the realization that one thing that was formerly believed to be stationary moves, the realization that two disparate entities are actually the same--as in space/time, wave/particle, mass/enegery, and the relaization that we must not ignore physical realtity just to have some fancy-shmancy math/science fiction.

Well, MDT is driven by all these forces.

Consider the equation x4 = ict .

x4 represents the fourth dimension. Now Einstein taught us that dimensions are very, very real *physical* entities. They can bend. They can warp. They can *move*. The fourth dimension is a *physical* entity.

i is the imaginary number--the square root of -1.

c is the *physical* velocity of light. c is a *physical* entity. we generally know it by the *physical* enity of the photon.

t is time--that *physical* parameter--that ever-moving force none can deny, except for some advanced postmodern physicists, who wish to keep quantum gravity, which does not exist, and get rid of time, which does, in fact, exist.

So it is that we have a *physical* equation telling us the relationship between *physical* entities.

x4 = ict.

The glaring mistake you make, pilgrim, is asserting that

x4 = ict is not a physical equation, relating physical quantities. How embarrassing! No wonder you must remain anonymous. Imagine if your department chair or funders found out!

I take great pride in MDT's simplicity, elegance, and boldness. You, the anonymous masked dwarf, like all too many physicists over the past thirty years whence Homer's Odyssey was deconstructed, adhere to a debased religion in which postmodern physics must be complicated, snarky, convoluted, indecipherable, filled with advanced, meaningless math that is used to select and promote groupthinkers, and to intimidate and cajole indie thinkers and lone cowboys, while building postmodern bureuacracies (like the machines did in The Matrix)rather than to exalt and explain--rather than to actually perform physics. Your fallen, mean spirit is the dominant brand and trademark of postmodern physics and academia, and your behavior can be seen throughout the internet and academy, where young physicists are taught to engage in groupthink math and snark independent thinkers who come forth with simple logic and reason. The Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM has two chapters entitled The End of Truth and Why The Worst Get on Top. Because of the nature of the system, you feel you are forced into anonymity.

But more and more of us, who agree with Einstein, are banding together, and time, as a *physical* entity, is on our side:

"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." --Albert Einstein

As physicists, it is not our job to wallow in snarky, meaningless mathematics and use it to convolute and confound the simple, so as to build postmodern bureaucratic empires, but it is our job to figure out what the math *physically* means.

That is *exactly* what MDT does--it goes back to Einstein's 1912 paper and tells us what the equation x4 = ict *physically* means, granting us new insight into a hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

"But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning." --(Max Planck, 1919 Nobel Prize address, 'The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory')

Something that was once considered to be mere math, is seen to have physical content, implicatioons, and meaning. Something that was once more or less considered to be stationary--the fourth dimension--is seen to be moving. 'Tis a revolutionary affront to the church of wormholes and time travel worthy of burning me at the stake, you can bet all the well-funded, anonymous cowards agree.

And too, where so many dismissed x4 = ict as "meaningless math," I actually noted that it has physcial meaning. Now I know that the highest form of postmodern physicists today are those who can look at an equals sign and deny it exists, just as the postmodern lit professor denies Shakespeare's and Dante's greatness, but I look at an equals sign and see it for what it is, just as I see x4, i, c, and t for what they are--entities in Einstein's 1912 Mansucript which are related in a *physical* manner.

And from MDT's simple postulate and equation we naturally get all of relativity in a 4D universe where the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. This also shows that time, as measured on our watches, is an emergent phenomena that arises because the propagation of photons, which are but matter carried upon the fourth expanding dimensions. The expansion of the fourth dimension distributes locality and thus is the cause of quantum entanglement, as well as qm's general features such as wave-particle duality and its probabilistic nature, wherein a photon has an equal chance of being found anywhere upon the nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probability distribution defined by the expansion of the fourth dimension, manifested in our three spatial dimensions. Entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries, can also be seen to arise naturally from MDT, and too, all the dualties--space/time, energy/mass, and wave/particle--are shown to have a common source.

Yes, anonymous coward, I am going to have to stick with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple beauty and elegance, which unifies so much of our entirety with a comon *physical* model. All the NSF mondey in the world, and the approval of your department chair and grad students, could not force me to change my mind--the fourth dimension moves and expands independent of the three spatial dimensions.

And I encourage you to choose MDT over your anomymous, cowardly, snarkfest behavior, which is intellectual violence unbecoming of a physicist.

For your unmanly, dishonorabe snark and bitter mean-spiritedness, we cannot forgive you, anonymous coward, and we hope you change your ways are man up and walk into town with your head held high, proud of your word and honor--proud of the Name your parents gave you. But for your refusal to recognize that the simple math can sometimes be telling us something profound and new about physics, perhaps we *can* forgive you, as even Planck did not believe the deeper implications of the quantum theory he developed. Einstein did.

Planck lectured at Columbia, "Consequently, there remains only the one conclusion, that previous electron theories suffer from an essential incompleteness which demands a modification, but how deeply this modification should go into the structure of the theory is a question upon which views are still widely divergent. J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta hv.

I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quanta hv solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another. A definite decision with regard to these important questions can only be brought about as a result of more experience."--(From Max Planck's famous Columbia Lectures)



From: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_pho
toelectric_effect.html

"Experimentalists railed at the prospect of what Einstein's equation of the photoelectric effect implied. Robert Millikan, the very man who showed that the equation really did work, would have nothing to do with its physical interpretation. In 1915, Millikan wrote: "The semicorpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present wholly untenable." Three years later, Ernest Rutherford, the great New Zealand physicist who probed the structure of the atom, said there appeared to be "no physical connection" between the energy and frequency in Einstein's hypothesis about light quanta. It didn't seem to make sense that a particle could have a frequency, or that a wave could act as if it were made of energetic particles. The two concepts seemed to rule each other out." --http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_p
hotoelectric_effect.html

Well, at least they all used their names when they railed against a new theory. Sure, they were all great physicists, but first and foremost, like Bohr, they were rugged *cowboys*.

Gamow loved cowboys & Westerns too. Check out, "Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious: The Essential George Gamow, The Masterpiece Science Edition (Hardcover)

by George Gamow."

"The Cowboy Experiment

Father's nickname was Joe. Niels Bohr and my father were addicted to western movies while they were in Copenhagen together. All the cowboys in these movies—Gary Cooper types—were called Joe. That's how Father's nickname came about—he was named after a typical cowboy movie hero.

Bohr had some difficulty with cowboy movies. Being a great physicist he took things very literally. After seeing one of the many films in which there was a shootout between a good guy in a white hat and a bad guy in a black hat, Bohr asked Father, "How is it possible that the man in the black hat always reaches... "

--http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Tompkins-Gets-Serious-Masterpiece
/dp/0131872915



Even more important than MDT is that we bring that classic, epic, western, heroic, cowboy spirit on back; for it is the true source of all enduring art and sicence, of truth and freedom, of rugged romance, beauty, and elegance--that rugged, lone truth seeker is how physics has ever advanced.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

"The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for “conscious” control or “conscious” planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme—while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." –F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

You can stand him up at the gates of hell, but he won't back down. Bruno, Socrates, Galileo, Dante, Einstein, Gamow, and Bohr--they all walked and spoke freely in plain sight, and stuck by their guns when the chips were down. They, like Odysseus, were classic, epic cowboys, always standing up against the anonymous, faceless mob for truth, reason, and justice.

Well, we've all got a showdwon commin'. And if you call down the thunder, you've got to man up and face it at high noon--you can't just run and hide and use snarky, postmodern math in the dark of night, sneaking up anonymously behind the mysterious stranger. For ultimately, as Feynman knew, science is not advanced by those seeking fame and fortune--tenure and titles--but by those seeking truth and classic, epic honor.

Perhaps we ought make a list of Bohr's and Gamow's favorite Westerns.

"Bohr was very fond of seeing Western (cowboy) movies in which gun duels are quite common. In all such duels, the villain draws his gun but the hero always shoots down the scoundrel first. Bohr had an explanation for this phenomenon, ascribing this as the difference between wilful and conditioned thinking. “The scoundrel has to think and decide when to go for his gun, which slows his action, while the hero acts faster because he acts, without thinking, the moment he sees the scoundrel reaching for his gun.” When nobody agreed with his theory, he bought a pair of toy guns and playing the hero, tried duels with his pupils. Surprisingly, he ‘killed’ everybody who tried to take a shot at him first." --from http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/030420/dmag21.htm

Bes
t,

Dr. E

p.s. http://confoundingvariable.com/article.cfm/id/211368

"New Book about 'Galloping Gamows' Shows Relationship between Physics and Cowboys"

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Dear reader,

At this point I think it’s high time that I stop castigating poor Dr. E, feeling that he doesn’t really deserve any more whipping. He’s evidently unable to perceive his condition, to rationalize, and conclude that he’s grappling with issues that are light-years ahead of his theoretically reachable horizon. After all, what horizon can one expect from someone who concludes that...

view entire post

Dear reader,

At this point I think it’s high time that I stop castigating poor Dr. E, feeling that he doesn’t really deserve any more whipping. He’s evidently unable to perceive his condition, to rationalize, and conclude that he’s grappling with issues that are light-years ahead of his theoretically reachable horizon. After all, what horizon can one expect from someone who concludes that two points that share a common coordinate stand “side-by-side”, and who thinks that anything with two sides and an equal sign, such as a coordinate transformation, is an equation that can be differentiated. And what rationality can one expect from someone who accuses me of “name calling”, when in fact I haven’t used a single name-calling adjective against him, whereas he has used the following against me: “anonymous coward”, “mean-spirited”, “anonymous dwarf”, “snarky individual”, and many more. In addition, he thinks I am a man (!) so he asks me to stand up like a man with pride, as if women have no dignity and only men can do such things as keep their heads up with pride (sorry for the dumb language, I’m just using his expressions).

I suppose the main purpose for which I decided to write in this forum has been achieved: I wanted to warn the unwary reader that what they read in Dr. E’s essay is pure and unadulterated nonsense. If anyone, after this, falls for Dr. E’s “theory”, fooled by his tactic to bury his interlocutor’s criticisms under tons of irrelevant material(*), I don’t think there is anything further I can do.

(*) His last post was 1/8th in length of the total on this page, and he went on telling us about the Odyssey, cowboys, and what films Bohr enjoyed. He could’ve posted the yellow pages as well --that would be more effective as a dumping material.

I admit my strategy to conceal my name worked only partially. But, had I disclosed it, he would waste ten times more energy and web space in trying to attack me personally. This way he was confined to repeating his calls to let him know who I am, ad nauseam.

What I want to express to you (and only to you, dear reader) is my puzzlement about our educational system. What kind of college graduates do we produce? (I’m assuming you’re an American. If not, you must be wondering what kind of graduates American colleges produce, and you’re right in sharing my puzzlement.) Do you like what you’re seeing? Think about it, this person claims he has a PhD in physics from UNC Chapel Hill! Is this ever possible? Can anyone obtain a PhD in physics from a well-known university, and yet be unable to understand what a coordinate transformation is, or even the very idea of distance on the xy-plane? If he says the truth, I’d find it’s tragic! How can I send my children to UNC Chapel Hill knowing they deliver PhD’s in physics over there to individuals of Dr. E’s caliber? (And how do I know that other universities are any better?) I prefer to believe that his resume, just as his essay, is a fraud --that makes me feel more tranquil regarding our universities. But even so, it’s still pathetic that someone can graduate from high school, work toward a degree in science, and still not have grasped what a coordinate is! Our secondary education is third-world like --all statistics and international competitions (e.g., math Olympiads) point toward this conclusion-- and it doesn’t look like it’s getting any better. I think we’re doomed.

Sorry about this rant, dear reader. Just think about it--a million thanks.

Dr. F

view post as summary

reply to this thread

I'll be surprised if fqxi allows ad-hominem, libellious defamiation (which is illegal), and personal attacks to remain here, which the anonymous coward engages in instead of responding to the physics in the above post, so I will repeat the above post below, as I stand by my words. An anonymous coward who cannot put their own name on their childish slanders, vitriol, and false libel and defamation...

view entire post

I'll be surprised if fqxi allows ad-hominem, libellious defamiation (which is illegal), and personal attacks to remain here, which the anonymous coward engages in instead of responding to the physics in the above post, so I will repeat the above post below, as I stand by my words. An anonymous coward who cannot put their own name on their childish slanders, vitriol, and false libel and defamation (which is illegal) is not worthy of the spirit embodied by every other participant here, nor is it worthy of further responses.

Anonymous Coward,

The one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use instead of logic and reason? Is it because you think that simple logic and reason is not enough, and that snarky namecalling and childish put-downs accomplish what your logic and reason cannot? Please focus on my questions here, and please answer, as I am answering your questions, even though you do not want to meet at high noon, but you prefer to catcall from behind a mask and shoot your opponent in the back, like a coward.

Niels Bohr had a lot to say about the Cowboy Code, and therein we can find insights as to why your behavior ultimately loses both on the cultural and scientific levels:

From: http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-ni
els-bohr.html

"The great Danish Physicist Niels Bohr, an avid Western film fan, wondered why in all the final shoot-outs, the hero shoots faster even if his adversary is the first to reach for his gun. Bohr asked himself if some physical truth might not explain this convention. He came to the conclusion that such a truth did indeed exist: the first to draw is the slowest because he decides to shoot, and dies. The second to draw lives because he is faster, and he is faster because he doesn't have to decide, he is decided. This brilliant discovery was the result of a whimsical empirical research: Bohr and his assistants went off to a toy shop, bought water pistols , and back in their laboratory duelled for hours and hours."

--http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-
niels-bohr.html

So it is that you decided to shoot first in the dark of night, from behind a mask like a lowly outlaw, and thus made my decision for me. EBohr--a Dane--had a great appreciation for the Cowboy--for honor and integrity--for Truth and Justice. Too, too many postmodern "physicists," such as yourself, have lost that honorable, noble spirit. The classic, epic showdown goes back 2800 years to The Odyssey, when Odysseus rides back on into his home, disguised as a beggar. Eventually he alone strings the bow and slays all the false suitors to his wife who kicked him around and spat on him--that eternal faceless, nameless mob which you, and all too many postmodern physicists, run with. But alas, they banned *The Odyssey* from the academy, and thus your behavior dominates.

What we have here is an evolution and paradigm shift, and deep down you sense it. That is the source for your emotional vitriol. If you were certain that I was wrong, you would calmly state so and let your Word--let your Name--let your Reason speak for themsleves. But as you are driven by emotions you do not understand, and as you do not have faith in your Word nor reason, and are embarrassed by it and/or your Name, you hide behind anonimity. Perhaps you do not wish to badmouth MDT, as you sense that in a year or so you may be seeking funding to support your MDT research.

A few major forces have ever driven the evolution of physics: The realization that math is actually telling us something about the *physical* nature of reality, the realization that one thing that was formerly believed to be stationary moves, the realization that two disparate entities are actually the same--as in space/time, wave/particle, mass/enegery, and the relaization that we must not ignore physical realtity just to have some fancy-shmancy math/science fiction.

Well, MDT is driven by all these forces.

Consider the equation x4 = ict .

x4 represents the fourth dimension. Now Einstein taught us that dimensions are very, very real *physical* entities. They can bend. They can warp. They can *move*. The fourth dimension is a *physical* entity.

i is the imaginary number--the square root of -1.

c is the *physical* velocity of light. c is a *physical* entity. we generally know it by the *physical* enity of the photon.

t is time--that *physical* parameter--that ever-moving force none can deny, except for some advanced postmodern physicists, who wish to keep quantum gravity, which does not exist, and get rid of time, which does, in fact, exist.

So it is that we have a *physical* equation telling us the relationship between *physical* entities.

x4 = ict.

The glaring mistake you make, pilgrim, is asserting that

x4 = ict is not a physical equation, relating physical quantities. How embarrassing! No wonder you must remain anonymous. Imagine if your department chair or funders found out!

I take great pride in MDT's simplicity, elegance, and boldness. You, the anonymous masked dwarf, like all too many physicists over the past thirty years whence Homer's Odyssey was deconstructed, adhere to a debased religion in which postmodern physics must be complicated, snarky, convoluted, indecipherable, filled with advanced, meaningless math that is used to select and promote groupthinkers, and to intimidate and cajole indie thinkers and lone cowboys, while building postmodern bureuacracies (like the machines did in The Matrix)rather than to exalt and explain--rather than to actually perform physics. Your fallen, mean spirit is the dominant brand and trademark of postmodern physics and academia, and your behavior can be seen throughout the internet and academy, where young physicists are taught to engage in groupthink math and snark independent thinkers who come forth with simple logic and reason. The Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM has two chapters entitled The End of Truth and Why The Worst Get on Top. Because of the nature of the system, you feel you are forced into anonymity.

But more and more of us, who agree with Einstein, are banding together, and time, as a *physical* entity, is on our side:

"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." --Albert Einstein

As physicists, it is not our job to wallow in snarky, meaningless mathematics and use it to convolute and confound the simple, so as to build postmodern bureaucratic empires, but it is our job to figure out what the math *physically* means.

That is *exactly* what MDT does--it goes back to Einstein's 1912 paper and tells us what the equation x4 = ict *physically* means, granting us new insight into a hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

"But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning." --(Max Planck, 1919 Nobel Prize address, 'The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory')

Something that was once considered to be mere math, is seen to have physical content, implicatioons, and meaning. Something that was once more or less considered to be stationary--the fourth dimension--is seen to be moving. 'Tis a revolutionary affront to the church of wormholes and time travel worthy of burning me at the stake, you can bet all the well-funded, anonymous cowards agree.

And too, where so many dismissed x4 = ict as "meaningless math," I actually noted that it has physcial meaning. Now I know that the highest form of postmodern physicists today are those who can look at an equals sign and deny it exists, just as the postmodern lit professor denies Shakespeare's and Dante's greatness, but I look at an equals sign and see it for what it is, just as I see x4, i, c, and t for what they are--entities in Einstein's 1912 Mansucript which are related in a *physical* manner.

And from MDT's simple postulate and equation we naturally get all of relativity in a 4D universe where the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. This also shows that time, as measured on our watches, is an emergent phenomena that arises because the propagation of photons, which are but matter carried upon the fourth expanding dimensions. The expansion of the fourth dimension distributes locality and thus is the cause of quantum entanglement, as well as qm's general features such as wave-particle duality and its probabilistic nature, wherein a photon has an equal chance of being found anywhere upon the nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probability distribution defined by the expansion of the fourth dimension, manifested in our three spatial dimensions. Entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries, can also be seen to arise naturally from MDT, and too, all the dualties--space/time, energy/mass, and wave/particle--are shown to have a common source.

Yes, anonymous coward, I am going to have to stick with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple beauty and elegance, which unifies so much of our entirety with a comon *physical* model. All the NSF mondey in the world, and the approval of your department chair and grad students, could not force me to change my mind--the fourth dimension moves and expands independent of the three spatial dimensions.

And I encourage you to choose MDT over your anomymous, cowardly, snarkfest behavior, which is intellectual violence unbecoming of a physicist.

For your unmanly, dishonorabe snark and bitter mean-spiritedness, we cannot forgive you, anonymous coward, and we hope you change your ways are man up and walk into town with your head held high, proud of your word and honor--proud of the Name your parents gave you. But for your refusal to recognize that the simple math can sometimes be telling us something profound and new about physics, perhaps we *can* forgive you, as even Planck did not believe the deeper implications of the quantum theory he developed. Einstein did.

Planck lectured at Columbia, "Consequently, there remains only the one conclusion, that previous electron theories suffer from an essential incompleteness which demands a modification, but how deeply this modification should go into the structure of the theory is a question upon which views are still widely divergent. J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta hv.

I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quanta hv solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another. A definite decision with regard to these important questions can only be brought about as a result of more experience."--(From Max Planck's famous Columbia Lectures)

From: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_pho
toelectric_effect.html

"Experimentalists railed at the prospect of what Einstein's equation of the photoelectric effect implied. Robert Millikan, the very man who showed that the equation really did work, would have nothing to do with its physical interpretation. In 1915, Millikan wrote: "The semicorpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present wholly untenable." Three years later, Ernest Rutherford, the great New Zealand physicist who probed the structure of the atom, said there appeared to be "no physical connection" between the energy and frequency in Einstein's hypothesis about light quanta. It didn't seem to make sense that a particle could have a frequency, or that a wave could act as if it were made of energetic particles. The two concepts seemed to rule each other out." --http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_p
hotoelectric_effect.html

Well, at least they all used their names when they railed against a new theory. Sure, they were all great physicists, but first and foremost, like Bohr, they were rugged *cowboys*.

Gamow loved cowboys & Westerns too. Check out, "Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious: The Essential George Gamow, The Masterpiece Science Edition (Hardcover)

by George Gamow."

"The Cowboy Experiment

Father's nickname was Joe. Niels Bohr and my father were addicted to western movies while they were in Copenhagen together. All the cowboys in these movies—Gary Cooper types—were called Joe. That's how Father's nickname came about—he was named after a typical cowboy movie hero.

Bohr had some difficulty with cowboy movies. Being a great physicist he took things very literally. After seeing one of the many films in which there was a shootout between a good guy in a white hat and a bad guy in a black hat, Bohr asked Father, "How is it possible that the man in the black hat always reaches... "

--http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Tompkins-Gets-Serious-Masterpiece
/dp/0131872915

Even more important than MDT is that we bring that classic, epic, western, heroic, cowboy spirit on back; for it is the true source of all enduring art and sicence, of truth and freedom, of rugged romance, beauty, and elegance--that rugged, lone truth seeker is how physics has ever advanced.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

"The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for “conscious” control or “conscious” planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme—while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." –F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

You can stand him up at the gates of hell, but he won't back down. Bruno, Socrates, Galileo, Dante, Einstein, Gamow, and Bohr--they all walked and spoke freely in plain sight, and stuck by their guns when the chips were down. They, like Odysseus, were classic, epic cowboys, always standing up against the anonymous, faceless mob for truth, reason, and justice.

Well, we've all got a showdwon commin'. And if you call down the thunder, you've got to man up and face it at high noon--you can't just run and hide and use snarky, postmodern math in the dark of night, sneaking up anonymously behind the mysterious stranger. For ultimately, as Feynman knew, science is not advanced by those seeking fame and fortune--tenure and titles--but by those seeking truth and classic, epic honor.

Perhaps we ought make a list of Bohr's and Gamow's favorite Westerns.

"Bohr was very fond of seeing Western (cowboy) movies in which gun duels are quite common. In all such duels, the villain draws his gun but the hero always shoots down the scoundrel first. Bohr had an explanation for this phenomenon, ascribing this as the difference between wilful and conditioned thinking. “The scoundrel has to think and decide when to go for his gun, which slows his action, while the hero acts faster because he acts, without thinking, the moment he sees the scoundrel reaching for his gun.” When nobody agreed with his theory, he bought a pair of toy guns and playing the hero, tried duels with his pupils. Surprisingly, he ‘killed’ everybody who tried to take a shot at him first." --from http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/030420/dmag21.htm

Bes
t,

Dr. E

p.s. http://confoundingvariable.com/article.cfm/id/211368

"New Book about 'Galloping Gamows' Shows Relationship between Physics and Cowboys"

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Hello John,

Thanks for your above comment,

"Wouldn't "Entangled particles" make more sense as different points on a wave front?

First it would explain why the information they carry is identical and also why it isn't disrupted, as particles would likely be. Such as why the light of stars that has traveled for billions of years is still extremely focused. It seems that while...

view entire post

Hello John,

Thanks for your above comment,

"Wouldn't "Entangled particles" make more sense as different points on a wave front?

First it would explain why the information they carry is identical and also why it isn't disrupted, as particles would likely be. Such as why the light of stars that has traveled for billions of years is still extremely focused. It seems that while this light is measured as quanta, it travels as a wave."

I'm not quite sure what you mean... but yes--waves and nonlocality do walk hand-in-hand.

Consider two entangled photons emitted from a common source. A photon is ageless, and thus both photons share a common locality in time. If one of them is measured, or halted, the two photons will no longer be entangled. So it is that the only way for the photons to remain entangled--to remain in the same place in the fourth dimension--is for both to travel at the velocity of light.

How curious is that!

To stay in the same place in the fourth dimension--to stay entangled--both photons must travel at c, which in its simplest case defines a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront in 3D.

Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

On page 4 of my paper, I write, "Consider two interacting photons that propagate in opposite directions, as in experiments inspired by Bell’s Inequality and conducted by Aspect et al. One second later, each photon's polarization is measured at detectors separated by 372,000 miles. According to the laws of quantum mechanics and numerous supporting experiments, the measurement at one detector

instantaneously affects the measurement at the second detector. It is as if the photons are yet side-by-side during the measurement. This “spooky action-at-a-distance,” as Einstein called it, is not so spooky in the context of a fourth expanding dimension, for although separated by 372,000 miles, the photons yet inhabit a common locality in the fourth dimension, as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, distributing locality at the rate of c. So it is that both quantum and relativistic phenomena are accounted for with the simple elegance of the postulate: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions."

Now, if we consider the x-y plane, every point in it shares a common z cooridnate of 0 (zero). If we consider points moving about the x-y plane, they can move anywhere they wish, and they will yet share a common z coordinate of 0. Or, they can be stationary in the x-y plane, and their z corrodinate will remain 0 (zero).

Now, the interesting thing about our 4D universe is that the only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions. If one stands still in the x,y,z coordinate system, one cannot stand still in fourth dimension, and vice versa. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions.

And we see this fact manifested in the entangled photons. The only way for them to remain (1) entangled (share a locality) and (2) ageless (locality in time), is to move at the velocity of light. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding or moving at the velocity of c, relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

All of relativity may be derived from dx4/dt = ic in a 4D universe, and we also get a *physical* model for nonlocality (the fourth expanding dimension distributes nonlocality), entanglement, entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries. dx4/dt = ic is a fundamental invariance upon which the very invariance of the velocity of light rests--both its independence of the source, and its independence of the velocity of the observer.

Thanks for the words--I hope this helps make clear how MDT provides a *physical* model for entanglement.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Anonymous Coward,

If you had serious points to make, I imagine you would be able to do it without the snarky name-calling and childish attacks. Also, if you were proud of your name, you would use it. If you had faith in your words, you would put your name on them.

Your tone and tenor bring to mind atheme from Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics--physics has come to a standstill...

view entire post

Anonymous Coward,

If you had serious points to make, I imagine you would be able to do it without the snarky name-calling and childish attacks. Also, if you were proud of your name, you would use it. If you had faith in your words, you would put your name on them.

Your tone and tenor bring to mind atheme from Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics--physics has come to a standstill largely because of well-funded, established snarkers, who haven't exactly advanced physics themselves, but only built a mean-spirited bureaucracy that is closed to new ideas--a bureaucracy you seem to be a part of. So who are you?

You write, "What difference does it make what my real identity is?" It obviously makes a vast difference, as you are carefully concealing your identity, while launching snarky, childish, ad hominem attacks.

In the spirit of truth and science, please share your name and credentials, if you have any.

Your greatest critique of my paper is that MDT is too simple, too beautiful, too elegant.

Again, we would like to know your identity and program of research, so that we can better understand why you so detest simple theories based upon rock-solid precepts and principles.

"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." Albert Einstein

Did you know that the most quoted phrase from the most-perfomed play of all time is "To be or not to be, that is the question?" Are you also one of those snarky deconstructors of Shakespeare, who removed him from the academy for using such simple phrases--the most fundamental verb in our language--to be?

Beethoven's 9th is based on the first five notes of the simple C Major scale. Do you also detest this final symphony because it is so simple that it cannot possibly be good?

Must all physics be tied up in knots and non-theories, to please your anonymous demands? So man up and let us know your name and program of research, so that we might better understand your emotional attacks, snarky namecalling, and put-downs.

In your snarky mean-spiritedness, which I would not be surprised to see fqxi delete, you completely miss the greater glory of MDT. It is hard to imagine a true physicist leading with childish putdowns and unadulturated snark. You ought be grateful I am even responding, but it is easy to sing the virtues of MDT.

Relativity freezes time and consigns us to a block universe. MDT unfreezes time and liberates us from the block universe, while also providing a *physical* model for time and all its arrows and assyemtries, entropy, entanglement, nonlocality, and relativity--a relativity wherein time flows, just as it does in our universe.

What do you personally have against the flow of time? Why are you snarking the ageless, timeless photon with ad hominem attacks? Why does time stop at the speed of light? Does not time flow day in and day out? *Why* does time flow? Do we not witness time in all realms of physics? Does not time have a dominant direction and arrow? Do not two initially-interacting photons remain entangled, no matter how far they are separated? All these things can be seen to descend from a common, simple principle--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, distribuuting locality and fathering time.

One of the chilish contentions in your diatribes is that x4 = ict is not an equation.

Well, it has two sides and an equals sign. It equates two entities, and this action is from where the word "equation" derives. x4 = ict.

You also tell me that I break some law in taking the derivative of the equation with respect to t.

dx4/dt = ic

There.

I did it again. Are you going to dress up as an anonymous dwarf and attack me personally some more, so as to preserve the sanctity of your block universe and time travel fanatasies? Go ahead, make my day.

In his 1912 Manuscript, Einsetin wrote x4=ict, inspired in part by Minkowski. Ergo, as t progresses, x4 must move.

dx4/dt = ic

There--I just took the derivative again. Are you going to round up a posse of masked, anonymous snarkers and hang me for this crime?

If simplicity, beauty, elegance, novelity, and truth are crimes, then I am guilty. You and your posse of anonymous snarkers can try and force me to sign a paper stating that the fourth dimension does not move relative to the three spatial dimensions, but even if you overpower my hand and force it to move so as to form the words, I will yet speak and think, "but yet it--the fourth dimension--moves." "E pur si muove." All the anonymous masked dwarves in the world cannot stop the fourth dimension from moving, nor can they keep time and progress in the realm of theoretical physics frozen forever.

The dominant source of your vituperation, ad-hominem attacks, childish namecalling, and bitter emotion seems to be that MDT is *too* simple, *too* beautiful, *too* elegant.

Well, if we got rid of all simple, elegant physics, we'd be left with string theory and the other non-theories that I am betting you have devoted your life to, and are too embarrassed to admit to, which is why you refuse to man up and share your identity. Your cowardly behavior is a tragic part of the postmodern, unheroic age, where the Great Books and Classics have been deconstructed, and small souls seek to rule via anonymous snark and fiat.

So what role do you play in all this?

That is one reason we would all like to know your true identity and program of research. Hundreds of millions of dollars--billions of dollars--have been spent over the past thirty years in theoretical physics. And yet, there has been no progress.

Theoretical physics has come to a standstill, and I would suggest that it is the fault of close-minded, snarky individuals such as yourself, and furthermore, I would suggest that deep down you know this, and this is the ultimate reason you remain anonymous.

You go on and on to accuse MDT of failing at things it does not even attempt, while ignoring all the things it gets right--the unification of time's arrows and assymetries across all realms, the unification of the dualities (space/time, mass/energy, wave/particle), our liberation from frozen time and a block universe, an expalnation for entanglement and nonlocality, and a fundamental invariance underlying all of relativity. It are anonymous, embittered folks like you who would prefer to live in a block universe and frozen time and frozen physics, where all progress is outlawed by anonymous snarkers, and math is used not in a simple manner to emlighten and exalt, but to berate, bring down, and destroy that which one did not create.

So please do share your name, title, and program of research, if you wish to continue. Perhaps by using your real name, you won't descend into snarky namecalling, and ad hominem attacks against straw men you created, and you can concentrate on discussing physics and physical reality.

If you had serious points to make, I imagine you would be able to do it without the snarky name-calling and childish attacks. Also, if you were proud of your name, you would use it. If you had faith in your words, you would put your name on them.

Your tone and tenor bring to mind atheme from Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics--physics has come to a standstill largely because of well-funded, established snarkers, who haven't exactly advanced physics themselves, but only built a mean-spirited bureaucracy that is closed to new ideas--a bureaucracy you seem to be a part of. So who are you?

You write, "What difference does it make what my real identity is?" It obviously makes a vast difference, as you are carefully concealing your identity, while launching snarky, childish, ad hominem attacks.

In the spirit of truth and science, please share your name and credentials, if you have any.

Your greatest critique of my paper is that MDT is too simple, too beautiful, too elegant.

Again, we would like to know your identity and program of research, so that we can better understand why you so detest simple theories based upon rock-solid precepts and principles.

"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." Albert Einstein

Did you know that the most quoted phrase from the most-perfomed play of all time is "To be or not to be, that is the question?" Are you also one of those snarky deconstructors of Shakespeare, who removed him from the academy for using such simple phrases--the most fundamental verb in our language--to be?

Beethoven's 9th is based on the first five notes of the simple C Major scale. Do you also detest this final symphony because it is so simple that it cannot possibly be good?

Must all physics be tied up in knots and non-theories, to please your anonymous demands? So man up and let us know your name and program of research, so that we might better understand your emotional attacks, snarky namecalling, and put-downs.

In your snarky mean-spiritedness, which I would not be surprised to see fqxi delete, you completely miss the greater glory of MDT. It is hard to imagine a true physicist leading with childish putdowns and unadulturated snark. You ought be grateful I am even responding, but it is easy to sing the virtues of MDT.

Relativity freezes time and consigns us to a block universe. MDT unfreezes time and liberates us from the block universe, while also providing a *physical* model for time and all its arrows and assyemtries, entropy, entanglement, nonlocality, and relativity--a relativity wherein time flows, just as it does in our universe.

What do you personally have against the flow of time? Why are you snarking the ageless, timeless photon with ad hominem attacks? Why does time stop at the speed of light? Does not time flow day in and day out? *Why* does time flow? Do we not witness time in all realms of physics? Does not time have a dominant direction and arrow? Do not two initially-interacting photons remain entangled, no matter how far they are separated? All these things can be seen to descend from a common, simple principle--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, distribuuting locality and fathering time.

One of the chilish contentions in your diatribes is that x4 = ict is not an equation.

Well, it has two sides and an equals sign. It equates two entities, and this action is from where the word "equation" derives. x4 = ict.

You also tell me that I break some law in taking the derivative of the equation with respect to t.

dx4/dt = ic

There.

I did it again. Are you going to dress up as an anonymous dwarf and attack me personally some more, so as to preserve the sanctity of your block universe and time travel fanatasies? Go ahead, make my day.

In his 1912 Manuscript, Einsetin wrote x4=ict, inspired in part by Minkowski. Ergo, as t progresses, x4 must move.

dx4/dt = ic

There--I just took the derivative again. Are you going to round up a posse of masked, anonymous snarkers and hang me for this crime?

If simplicity, beauty, elegance, novelity, and truth are crimes, then I am guilty. You and your posse of anonymous snarkers can try and force me to sign a paper stating that the fourth dimension does not move relative to the three spatial dimensions, but even if you overpower my hand and force it to move so as to form the words, I will yet speak and think, "but yet it--the fourth dimension--moves." "E pur si muove." All the anonymous masked dwarves in the world cannot stop the fourth dimension from moving, nor can they keep time and progress in the realm of theoretical physics frozen forever.

The dominant source of your vituperation, ad-hominem attacks, childish namecalling, and bitter emotion seems to be that MDT is *too* simple, *too* beautiful, *too* elegant.

Well, if we got rid of all simple, elegant physics, we'd be left with string theory and the other non-theories that I am betting you have devoted your life to, and are too embarrassed to admit to, which is why you refuse to man up and share your identity. Your cowardly behavior is a tragic part of the postmodern, unheroic age, where the Great Books and Classics have been deconstructed, and small souls seek to rule via anonymous snark and fiat.

So what role do you play in all this?

That is one reason we would all like to know your true identity and program of research. Hundreds of millions of dollars--billions of dollars--have been spent over the past thirty years in theoretical physics. And yet, there has been no progress.

Theoretical physics has come to a standstill, and I would suggest that it is the fault of close-minded, snarky individuals such as yourself, and furthermore, I would suggest that deep down you know this, and this is the ultimate reason you remain anonymous.

You go on and on to accuse MDT of failing at things it does not even attempt, while ignoring all the things it gets right--the unification of time's arrows and assymetries across all realms, the unification of the dualities (space/time, mass/energy, wave/particle), our liberation from frozen time and a block universe, an expalnation for entanglement and nonlocality, and a fundamental invariance underlying all of relativity. It are anonymous, embittered folks like you who would prefer to live in a block universe and frozen time and frozen physics, where all progress is outlawed by anonymous snarkers, and math is used not in a simple manner to emlighten and exalt, but to berate, bring down, and destroy that which one did not create.

So please do share your name, title, and program of research, if you wish to continue. Perhaps by using your real name, you won't descend into snarky namecalling, and ad hominem attacks against straw men you created, and you can concentrate on discussing physics and physical reality.

Dr. E

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Anonymous Coward,

The one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use instead of logic and...

view entire post

Anonymous Coward,

The one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use instead of logic and reason? Is it because you think that simple logic and reason is not enough, and that snarky namecalling and childish put-downs accomplish what your logic and reason cannot? Please focus on my questions here, and please answer, as I am answering your questions, even though you do not want to meet at high noon, but you prefer to catcall from behind a mask and shoot your opponent in the back, like a coward.

Niels Bohr had a lot to say about the Cowboy Code, and therein we can find insights as to why your behavior ultimately loses both on the cultural and scientific levels:

From: http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-ni
els-bohr.html

"The great Danish Physicist Niels Bohr, an avid Western film fan, wondered why in all the final shoot-outs, the hero shoots faster even if his adversary is the first to reach for his gun. Bohr asked himself if some physical truth might not explain this convention. He came to the conclusion that such a truth did indeed exist: the first to draw is the slowest because he decides to shoot, and dies. The second to draw lives because he is faster, and he is faster because he doesn't have to decide, he is decided. This brilliant discovery was the result of a whimsical empirical research: Bohr and his assistants went off to a toy shop, bought water pistols , and back in their laboratory duelled for hours and hours."

--http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-
niels-bohr.html

So it is that you decided to shoot first in the dark of night, from behind a mask like a lowly outlaw, and thus made my decision for me. EBohr--a Dane--had a great appreciation for the Cowboy--for honor and integrity--for Truth and Justice. Too, too many postmodern "physicists," such as yourself, have lost that honorable, noble spirit. The classic, epic showdown goes back 2800 years to The Odyssey, when Odysseus rides back on into his home, disguised as a beggar. Eventually he alone strings the bow and slays all the false suitors to his wife who kicked him around and spat on him--that eternal faceless, nameless mob which you, and all too many postmodern physicists, run with. But alas, they banned *The Odyssey* from the academy, and thus your behavior dominates.

What we have here is an evolution and paradigm shift, and deep down you sense it. That is the source for your emotional vitriol. If you were certain that I was wrong, you would calmly state so and let your Word--let your Name--let your Reason speak for themsleves. But as you are driven by emotions you do not understand, and as you do not have faith in your Word nor reason, and are embarrassed by it and/or your Name, you hide behind anonimity. Perhaps you do not wish to badmouth MDT, as you sense that in a year or so you may be seeking funding to support your MDT research.

A few major forces have ever driven the evolution of physics: The realization that math is actually telling us something about the *physical* nature of reality, the realization that one thing that was formerly believed to be stationary moves, the realization that two disparate entities are actually the same--as in space/time, wave/particle, mass/enegery, and the relaization that we must not ignore physical realtity just to have some fancy-shmancy math/science fiction.

Well, MDT is driven by all these forces.

Consider the equation x4 = ict .

x4 represents the fourth dimension. Now Einstein taught us that dimensions are very, very real *physical* entities. They can bend. They can warp. They can *move*. The fourth dimension is a *physical* entity.

i is the imaginary number--the square root of -1.

c is the *physical* velocity of light. c is a *physical* entity. we generally know it by the *physical* enity of the photon.

t is time--that *physical* parameter--that ever-moving force none can deny, except for some advanced postmodern physicists, who wish to keep quantum gravity, which does not exist, and get rid of time, which does, in fact, exist.

So it is that we have a *physical* equation telling us the relationship between *physical* entities.

x4 = ict.

The glaring mistake you make, pilgrim, is asserting that

x4 = ict is not a physical equation, relating physical quantities. How embarrassing! No wonder you must remain anonymous. Imagine if your department chair or funders found out!

I take great pride in MDT's simplicity, elegance, and boldness. You, the anonymous masked dwarf, like all too many physicists over the past thirty years whence Homer's Odyssey was deconstructed, adhere to a debased religion in which postmodern physics must be complicated, snarky, convoluted, indecipherable, filled with advanced, meaningless math that is used to select and promote groupthinkers, and to intimidate and cajole indie thinkers and lone cowboys, while building postmodern bureuacracies (like the machines did in The Matrix)rather than to exalt and explain--rather than to actually perform physics. Your fallen, mean spirit is the dominant brand and trademark of postmodern physics and academia, and your behavior can be seen throughout the internet and academy, where young physicists are taught to engage in groupthink math and snark independent thinkers who come forth with simple logic and reason. The Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM has two chapters entitled The End of Truth and Why The Worst Get on Top. Because of the nature of the system, you feel you are forced into anonymity.

But more and more of us, who agree with Einstein, are banding together, and time, as a *physical* entity, is on our side:

"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." --Albert Einstein

As physicists, it is not our job to wallow in snarky, meaningless mathematics and use it to convolute and confound the simple, so as to build postmodern bureaucratic empires, but it is our job to figure out what the math *physically* means.

That is *exactly* what MDT does--it goes back to Einstein's 1912 paper and tells us what the equation x4 = ict *physically* means, granting us new insight into a hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

"But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning." --(Max Planck, 1919 Nobel Prize address, 'The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory')

Something that was once considered to be mere math, is seen to have physical content, implicatioons, and meaning. Something that was once more or less considered to be stationary--the fourth dimension--is seen to be moving. 'Tis a revolutionary affront to the church of wormholes and time travel worthy of burning me at the stake, you can bet all the well-funded, anonymous cowards agree.

And too, where so many dismissed x4 = ict as "meaningless math," I actually noted that it has physcial meaning. Now I know that the highest form of postmodern physicists today are those who can look at an equals sign and deny it exists, just as the postmodern lit professor denies Shakespeare's and Dante's greatness, but I look at an equals sign and see it for what it is, just as I see x4, i, c, and t for what they are--entities in Einstein's 1912 Mansucript which are related in a *physical* manner.

And from MDT's simple postulate and equation we naturally get all of relativity in a 4D universe where the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. This also shows that time, as measured on our watches, is an emergent phenomena that arises because the propagation of photons, which are but matter carried upon the fourth expanding dimensions. The expansion of the fourth dimension distributes locality and thus is the cause of quantum entanglement, as well as qm's general features such as wave-particle duality and its probabilistic nature, wherein a photon has an equal chance of being found anywhere upon the nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probability distribution defined by the expansion of the fourth dimension, manifested in our three spatial dimensions. Entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries, can also be seen to arise naturally from MDT, and too, all the dualties--space/time, energy/mass, and wave/particle--are shown to have a common source.

Yes, anonymous coward, I am going to have to stick with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple beauty and elegance, which unifies so much of our entirety with a comon *physical* model. All the NSF mondey in the world, and the approval of your department chair and grad students, could not force me to change my mind--the fourth dimension moves and expands independent of the three spatial dimensions.

And I encourage you to choose MDT over your anomymous, cowardly, snarkfest behavior, which is intellectual violence unbecoming of a physicist.

For your unmanly, dishonorabe snark and bitter mean-spiritedness, we cannot forgive you, anonymous coward, and we hope you change your ways are man up and walk into town with your head held high, proud of your word and honor--proud of the Name your parents gave you. But for your refusal to recognize that the simple math can sometimes be telling us something profound and new about physics, perhaps we *can* forgive you, as even Planck did not believe the deeper implications of the quantum theory he developed. Einstein did.

Planck lectured at Columbia, "Consequently, there remains only the one conclusion, that previous electron theories suffer from an essential incompleteness which demands a modification, but how deeply this modification should go into the structure of the theory is a question upon which views are still widely divergent. J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta hv.

I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quanta hv solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another. A definite decision with regard to these important questions can only be brought about as a result of more experience."--(From Max Planck's famous Columbia Lectures)

From: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_pho
toelectric_effect.html

"Experimentalists railed at the prospect of what Einstein's equation of the photoelectric effect implied. Robert Millikan, the very man who showed that the equation really did work, would have nothing to do with its physical interpretation. In 1915, Millikan wrote: "The semicorpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present wholly untenable." Three years later, Ernest Rutherford, the great New Zealand physicist who probed the structure of the atom, said there appeared to be "no physical connection" between the energy and frequency in Einstein's hypothesis about light quanta. It didn't seem to make sense that a particle could have a frequency, or that a wave could act as if it were made of energetic particles. The two concepts seemed to rule each other out." --http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_p
hotoelectric_effect.html

Well, at least they all used their names when they railed against a new theory. Sure, they were all great physicists, but first and foremost, like Bohr, they were rugged *cowboys*.

Gamow loved cowboys & Westerns too. Check out, "Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious: The Essential George Gamow, The Masterpiece Science Edition (Hardcover)

by George Gamow."

"The Cowboy Experiment

Father's nickname was Joe. Niels Bohr and my father were addicted to western movies while they were in Copenhagen together. All the cowboys in these movies—Gary Cooper types—were called Joe. That's how Father's nickname came about—he was named after a typical cowboy movie hero.

Bohr had some difficulty with cowboy movies. Being a great physicist he took things very literally. After seeing one of the many films in which there was a shootout between a good guy in a white hat and a bad guy in a black hat, Bohr asked Father, "How is it possible that the man in the black hat always reaches... "

--http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Tompkins-Gets-Serious-Masterpiece
/dp/0131872915

Even more important than MDT is that we bring that classic, epic, western, heroic, cowboy spirit on back; for it is the true source of all enduring art and sicence, of truth and freedom, of rugged romance, beauty, and elegance--that rugged, lone truth seeker is how physics has ever advanced.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

"The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for “conscious” control or “conscious” planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme—while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." –F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

You can stand him up at the gates of hell, but he won't back down. Bruno, Socrates, Galileo, Dante, Einstein, Gamow, and Bohr--they all walked and spoke freely in plain sight, and stuck by their guns when the chips were down. They, like Odysseus, were classic, epic cowboys, always standing up against the anonymous, faceless mob for truth, reason, and justice.

Well, we've all got a showdwon commin'. And if you call down the thunder, you've got to man up and face it at high noon--you can't just run and hide and use snarky, postmodern math in the dark of night, sneaking up anonymously behind the mysterious stranger. For ultimately, as Feynman knew, science is not advanced by those seeking fame and fortune--tenure and titles--but by those seeking truth and classic, epic honor.

Perhaps we ought make a list of Bohr's and Gamow's favorite Westerns.

"Bohr was very fond of seeing Western (cowboy) movies in which gun duels are quite common. In all such duels, the villain draws his gun but the hero always shoots down the scoundrel first. Bohr had an explanation for this phenomenon, ascribing this as the difference between wilful and conditioned thinking. “The scoundrel has to think and decide when to go for his gun, which slows his action, while the hero acts faster because he acts, without thinking, the moment he sees the scoundrel reaching for his gun.” When nobody agreed with his theory, he bought a pair of toy guns and playing the hero, tried duels with his pupils. Surprisingly, he ‘killed’ everybody who tried to take a shot at him first." --from http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/030420/dmag21.htm

The
one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use instead of logic and reason? Is it because you think that simple logic and reason is not enough, and that snarky namecalling and childish put-downs accomplish what your logic and reason cannot? Please focus on my questions here, and please answer, as I am answering your questions, even though you do not want to meet at high noon, but you prefer to catcall from behind a mask and shoot your opponent in the back, like a coward.

Niels Bohr had a lot to say about the Cowboy Code, and therein we can find insights as to why your behavior ultimately loses both on the cultural and scientific levels:

From: http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-ni
els-bohr.html

"The great Danish Physicist Niels Bohr, an avid Western film fan, wondered why in all the final shoot-outs, the hero shoots faster even if his adversary is the first to reach for his gun. Bohr asked himself if some physical truth might not explain this convention. He came to the conclusion that such a truth did indeed exist: the first to draw is the slowest because he decides to shoot, and dies. The second to draw lives because he is faster, and he is faster because he doesn't have to decide, he is decided. This brilliant discovery was the result of a whimsical empirical research: Bohr and his assistants went off to a toy shop, bought water pistols , and back in their laboratory duelled for hours and hours."

--http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-
niels-bohr.html

So it is that you decided to shoot first in the dark of night, from behind a mask like a lowly outlaw, and thus made my decision for me. EBohr--a Dane--had a great appreciation for the Cowboy--for honor and integrity--for Truth and Justice. Too, too many postmodern "physicists," such as yourself, have lost that honorable, noble spirit. The classic, epic showdown goes back 2800 years to The Odyssey, when Odysseus rides back on into his home, disguised as a beggar. Eventually he alone strings the bow and slays all the false suitors to his wife who kicked him around and spat on him--that eternal faceless, nameless mob which you, and all too many postmodern physicists, run with. But alas, they banned *The Odyssey* from the academy, and thus your behavior dominates.

What we have here is an evolution and paradigm shift, and deep down you sense it. That is the source for your emotional vitriol. If you were certain that I was wrong, you would calmly state so and let your Word--let your Name--let your Reason speak for themsleves. But as you are driven by emotions you do not understand, and as you do not have faith in your Word nor reason, and are embarrassed by it and/or your Name, you hide behind anonimity. Perhaps you do not wish to badmouth MDT, as you sense that in a year or so you may be seeking funding to support your MDT research.

A few major forces have ever driven the evolution of physics: The realization that math is actually telling us something about the *physical* nature of reality, the realization that one thing that was formerly believed to be stationary moves, the realization that two disparate entities are actually the same--as in space/time, wave/particle, mass/enegery, and the relaization that we must not ignore physical realtity just to have some fancy-shmancy math/science fiction.

Well, MDT is driven by all these forces.

Consider the equation x4 = ict .

x4 represents the fourth dimension. Now Einstein taught us that dimensions are very, very real *physical* entities. They can bend. They can warp. They can *move*. The fourth dimension is a *physical* entity.

i is the imaginary number--the square root of -1.

c is the *physical* velocity of light. c is a *physical* entity. we generally know it by the *physical* enity of the photon.

t is time--that *physical* parameter--that ever-moving force none can deny, except for some advanced postmodern physicists, who wish to keep quantum gravity, which does not exist, and get rid of time, which does, in fact, exist.

So it is that we have a *physical* equation telling us the relationship between *physical* entities.

x4 = ict.

The glaring mistake you make, pilgrim, is asserting that

x4 = ict is not a physical equation, relating physical quantities. How embarrassing! No wonder you must remain anonymous. Imagine if your department chair or funders found out!

I take great pride in MDT's simplicity, elegance, and boldness. You, the anonymous masked dwarf, like all too many physicists over the past thirty years whence Homer's Odyssey was deconstructed, adhere to a debased religion in which postmodern physics must be complicated, snarky, convoluted, indecipherable, filled with advanced, meaningless math that is used to select and promote groupthinkers, and to intimidate and cajole indie thinkers and lone cowboys, while building postmodern bureuacracies (like the machines did in The Matrix)rather than to exalt and explain--rather than to actually perform physics. Your fallen, mean spirit is the dominant brand and trademark of postmodern physics and academia, and your behavior can be seen throughout the internet and academy, where young physicists are taught to engage in groupthink math and snark independent thinkers who come forth with simple logic and reason. The Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM has two chapters entitled The End of Truth and Why The Worst Get on Top. Because of the nature of the system, you feel you are forced into anonymity.

But more and more of us, who agree with Einstein, are banding together, and time, as a *physical* entity, is on our side:

"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." --Albert Einstein

As physicists, it is not our job to wallow in snarky, meaningless mathematics and use it to convolute and confound the simple, so as to build postmodern bureaucratic empires, but it is our job to figure out what the math *physically* means.

That is *exactly* what MDT does--it goes back to Einstein's 1912 paper and tells us what the equation x4 = ict *physically* means, granting us new insight into a hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

"But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning." --(Max Planck, 1919 Nobel Prize address, 'The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory')

Something that was once considered to be mere math, is seen to have physical content, implicatioons, and meaning. Something that was once more or less considered to be stationary--the fourth dimension--is seen to be moving. 'Tis a revolutionary affront to the church of wormholes and time travel worthy of burning me at the stake, you can bet all the well-funded, anonymous cowards agree.

And too, where so many dismissed x4 = ict as "meaningless math," I actually noted that it has physcial meaning. Now I know that the highest form of postmodern physicists today are those who can look at an equals sign and deny it exists, just as the postmodern lit professor denies Shakespeare's and Dante's greatness, but I look at an equals sign and see it for what it is, just as I see x4, i, c, and t for what they are--entities in Einstein's 1912 Mansucript which are related in a *physical* manner.

And from MDT's simple postulate and equation we naturally get all of relativity in a 4D universe where the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. This also shows that time, as measured on our watches, is an emergent phenomena that arises because the propagation of photons, which are but matter carried upon the fourth expanding dimensions. The expansion of the fourth dimension distributes locality and thus is the cause of quantum entanglement, as well as qm's general features such as wave-particle duality and its probabilistic nature, wherein a photon has an equal chance of being found anywhere upon the nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probability distribution defined by the expansion of the fourth dimension, manifested in our three spatial dimensions. Entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries, can also be seen to arise naturally from MDT, and too, all the dualties--space/time, energy/mass, and wave/particle--are shown to have a common source.

Yes, anonymous coward, I am going to have to stick with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple beauty and elegance, which unifies so much of our entirety with a comon *physical* model. All the NSF mondey in the world, and the approval of your department chair and grad students, could not force me to change my mind--the fourth dimension moves and expands independent of the three spatial dimensions.

And I encourage you to choose MDT over your anomymous, cowardly, snarkfest behavior, which is intellectual violence unbecoming of a physicist.

For your unmanly, dishonorabe snark and bitter mean-spiritedness, we cannot forgive you, anonymous coward, and we hope you change your ways are man up and walk into town with your head held high, proud of your word and honor--proud of the Name your parents gave you. But for your refusal to recognize that the simple math can sometimes be telling us something profound and new about physics, perhaps we *can* forgive you, as even Planck did not believe the deeper implications of the quantum theory he developed. Einstein did.

Planck lectured at Columbia, "Consequently, there remains only the one conclusion, that previous electron theories suffer from an essential incompleteness which demands a modification, but how deeply this modification should go into the structure of the theory is a question upon which views are still widely divergent. J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta hv.

I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quanta hv solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another. A definite decision with regard to these important questions can only be brought about as a result of more experience."--(From Max Planck's famous Columbia Lectures)

From: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_pho
toelectric_effect.html

"Experimentalists railed at the prospect of what Einstein's equation of the photoelectric effect implied. Robert Millikan, the very man who showed that the equation really did work, would have nothing to do with its physical interpretation. In 1915, Millikan wrote: "The semicorpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present wholly untenable." Three years later, Ernest Rutherford, the great New Zealand physicist who probed the structure of the atom, said there appeared to be "no physical connection" between the energy and frequency in Einstein's hypothesis about light quanta. It didn't seem to make sense that a particle could have a frequency, or that a wave could act as if it were made of energetic particles. The two concepts seemed to rule each other out." --http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_p
hotoelectric_effect.html

Well, at least they all used their names when they railed against a new theory. Sure, they were all great physicists, but first and foremost, like Bohr, they were rugged *cowboys*.

Gamow loved cowboys & Westerns too. Check out, "Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious: The Essential George Gamow, The Masterpiece Science Edition (Hardcover)

by George Gamow."

"The Cowboy Experiment

Father's nickname was Joe. Niels Bohr and my father were addicted to western movies while they were in Copenhagen together. All the cowboys in these movies—Gary Cooper types—were called Joe. That's how Father's nickname came about—he was named after a typical cowboy movie hero.

Bohr had some difficulty with cowboy movies. Being a great physicist he took things very literally. After seeing one of the many films in which there was a shootout between a good guy in a white hat and a bad guy in a black hat, Bohr asked Father, "How is it possible that the man in the black hat always reaches... "

--http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Tompkins-Gets-Serious-Masterpiece
/dp/0131872915

Even more important than MDT is that we bring that classic, epic, western, heroic, cowboy spirit on back; for it is the true source of all enduring art and sicence, of truth and freedom, of rugged romance, beauty, and elegance--that rugged, lone truth seeker is how physics has ever advanced.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

"The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for “conscious” control or “conscious” planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme—while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." –F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

You can stand him up at the gates of hell, but he won't back down. Bruno, Socrates, Galileo, Dante, Einstein, Gamow, and Bohr--they all walked and spoke freely in plain sight, and stuck by their guns when the chips were down. They, like Odysseus, were classic, epic cowboys, always standing up against the anonymous, faceless mob for truth, reason, and justice.

Well, we've all got a showdwon commin'. And if you call down the thunder, you've got to man up and face it at high noon--you can't just run and hide and use snarky, postmodern math in the dark of night, sneaking up anonymously behind the mysterious stranger. For ultimately, as Feynman knew, science is not advanced by those seeking fame and fortune--tenure and titles--but by those seeking truth and classic, epic honor.

Perhaps we ought make a list of Bohr's and Gamow's favorite Westerns.

"Bohr was very fond of seeing Western (cowboy) movies in which gun duels are quite common. In all such duels, the villain draws his gun but the hero always shoots down the scoundrel first. Bohr had an explanation for this phenomenon, ascribing this as the difference between wilful and conditioned thinking. “The scoundrel has to think and decide when to go for his gun, which slows his action, while the hero acts faster because he acts, without thinking, the moment he sees the scoundrel reaching for his gun.” When nobody agreed with his theory, he bought a pair of toy guns and playing the hero, tried duels with his pupils. Surprisingly, he ‘killed’ everybody who tried to take a shot at him first." --from http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/030420/dmag21.htm

The
one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use instead of logic and reason? Is it because you think that simple logic and reason is not enough, and that snarky namecalling and childish put-downs accomplish what your logic and reason cannot? Please focus on my questions here, and please answer, as I am answering your questions, even though you do not want to meet at high noon, but you prefer to catcall from behind a mask and shoot your opponent in the back, like a coward.

Niels Bohr had a lot to say about the Cowboy Code, and therein we can find insights as to why your behavior ultimately loses both on the cultural and scientific levels:

From: http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-ni
els-bohr.html

"The great Danish Physicist Niels Bohr, an avid Western film fan, wondered why in all the final shoot-outs, the hero shoots faster even if his adversary is the first to reach for his gun. Bohr asked himself if some physical truth might not explain this convention. He came to the conclusion that such a truth did indeed exist: the first to draw is the slowest because he decides to shoot, and dies. The second to draw lives because he is faster, and he is faster because he doesn't have to decide, he is decided. This brilliant discovery was the result of a whimsical empirical research: Bohr and his assistants went off to a toy shop, bought water pistols , and back in their laboratory duelled for hours and hours."

--http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-
niels-bohr.html

So it is that you decided to shoot first in the dark of night, from behind a mask like a lowly outlaw, and thus made my decision for me. EBohr--a Dane--had a great appreciation for the Cowboy--for honor and integrity--for Truth and Justice. Too, too many postmodern "physicists," such as yourself, have lost that honorable, noble spirit. The classic, epic showdown goes back 2800 years to The Odyssey, when Odysseus rides back on into his home, disguised as a beggar. Eventually he alone strings the bow and slays all the false suitors to his wife who kicked him around and spat on him--that eternal faceless, nameless mob which you, and all too many postmodern physicists, run with. But alas, they banned *The Odyssey* from the academy, and thus your behavior dominates.

What we have here is an evolution and paradigm shift, and deep down you sense it. That is the source for your emotional vitriol. If you were certain that I was wrong, you would calmly state so and let your Word--let your Name--let your Reason speak for themsleves. But as you are driven by emotions you do not understand, and as you do not have faith in your Word nor reason, and are embarrassed by it and/or your Name, you hide behind anonimity. Perhaps you do not wish to badmouth MDT, as you sense that in a year or so you may be seeking funding to support your MDT research.

A few major forces have ever driven the evolution of physics: The realization that math is actually telling us something about the *physical* nature of reality, the realization that one thing that was formerly believed to be stationary moves, the realization that two disparate entities are actually the same--as in space/time, wave/particle, mass/enegery, and the relaization that we must not ignore physical realtity just to have some fancy-shmancy math/science fiction.

Well, MDT is driven by all these forces.

Consider the equation x4 = ict .

x4 represents the fourth dimension. Now Einstein taught us that dimensions are very, very real *physical* entities. They can bend. They can warp. They can *move*. The fourth dimension is a *physical* entity.

i is the imaginary number--the square root of -1.

c is the *physical* velocity of light. c is a *physical* entity. we generally know it by the *physical* enity of the photon.

t is time--that *physical* parameter--that ever-moving force none can deny, except for some advanced postmodern physicists, who wish to keep quantum gravity, which does not exist, and get rid of time, which does, in fact, exist.

So it is that we have a *physical* equation telling us the relationship between *physical* entities.

x4 = ict.

The glaring mistake you make, pilgrim, is asserting that

x4 = ict is not a physical equation, relating physical quantities. How embarrassing! No wonder you must remain anonymous. Imagine if your department chair or funders found out!

I take great pride in MDT's simplicity, elegance, and boldness. You, the anonymous masked dwarf, like all too many physicists over the past thirty years whence Homer's Odyssey was deconstructed, adhere to a debased religion in which postmodern physics must be complicated, snarky, convoluted, indecipherable, filled with advanced, meaningless math that is used to select and promote groupthinkers, and to intimidate and cajole indie thinkers and lone cowboys, while building postmodern bureuacracies (like the machines did in The Matrix)rather than to exalt and explain--rather than to actually perform physics. Your fallen, mean spirit is the dominant brand and trademark of postmodern physics and academia, and your behavior can be seen throughout the internet and academy, where young physicists are taught to engage in groupthink math and snark independent thinkers who come forth with simple logic and reason. The Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM has two chapters entitled The End of Truth and Why The Worst Get on Top. Because of the nature of the system, you feel you are forced into anonymity.

But more and more of us, who agree with Einstein, are banding together, and time, as a *physical* entity, is on our side:

"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." --Albert Einstein

As physicists, it is not our job to wallow in snarky, meaningless mathematics and use it to convolute and confound the simple, so as to build postmodern bureaucratic empires, but it is our job to figure out what the math *physically* means.

That is *exactly* what MDT does--it goes back to Einstein's 1912 paper and tells us what the equation x4 = ict *physically* means, granting us new insight into a hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

"But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning." --(Max Planck, 1919 Nobel Prize address, 'The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory')

Something that was once considered to be mere math, is seen to have physical content, implicatioons, and meaning. Something that was once more or less considered to be stationary--the fourth dimension--is seen to be moving. 'Tis a revolutionary affront to the church of wormholes and time travel worthy of burning me at the stake, you can bet all the well-funded, anonymous cowards agree.

And too, where so many dismissed x4 = ict as "meaningless math," I actually noted that it has physcial meaning. Now I know that the highest form of postmodern physicists today are those who can look at an equals sign and deny it exists, just as the postmodern lit professor denies Shakespeare's and Dante's greatness, but I look at an equals sign and see it for what it is, just as I see x4, i, c, and t for what they are--entities in Einstein's 1912 Mansucript which are related in a *physical* manner.

And from MDT's simple postulate and equation we naturally get all of relativity in a 4D universe where the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. This also shows that time, as measured on our watches, is an emergent phenomena that arises because the propagation of photons, which are but matter carried upon the fourth expanding dimensions. The expansion of the fourth dimension distributes locality and thus is the cause of quantum entanglement, as well as qm's general features such as wave-particle duality and its probabilistic nature, wherein a photon has an equal chance of being found anywhere upon the nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probability distribution defined by the expansion of the fourth dimension, manifested in our three spatial dimensions. Entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries, can also be seen to arise naturally from MDT, and too, all the dualties--space/time, energy/mass, and wave/particle--are shown to have a common source.

Yes, anonymous coward, I am going to have to stick with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple beauty and elegance, which unifies so much of our entirety with a comon *physical* model. All the NSF mondey in the world, and the approval of your department chair and grad students, could not force me to change my mind--the fourth dimension moves and expands independent of the three spatial dimensions.

And I encourage you to choose MDT over your anomymous, cowardly, snarkfest behavior, which is intellectual violence unbecoming of a physicist.

For your unmanly, dishonorabe snark and bitter mean-spiritedness, we cannot forgive you, anonymous coward, and we hope you change your ways are man up and walk into town with your head held high, proud of your word and honor--proud of the Name your parents gave you. But for your refusal to recognize that the simple math can sometimes be telling us something profound and new about physics, perhaps we *can* forgive you, as even Planck did not believe the deeper implications of the quantum theory he developed. Einstein did.

Planck lectured at Columbia, "Consequently, there remains only the one conclusion, that previous electron theories suffer from an essential incompleteness which demands a modification, but how deeply this modification should go into the structure of the theory is a question upon which views are still widely divergent. J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta hv.

I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quanta hv solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another. A definite decision with regard to these important questions can only be brought about as a result of more experience."--(From Max Planck's famous Columbia Lectures)

From: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_pho
toelectric_effect.html

"Experimentalists railed at the prospect of what Einstein's equation of the photoelectric effect implied. Robert Millikan, the very man who showed that the equation really did work, would have nothing to do with its physical interpretation. In 1915, Millikan wrote: "The semicorpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present wholly untenable." Three years later, Ernest Rutherford, the great New Zealand physicist who probed the structure of the atom, said there appeared to be "no physical connection" between the energy and frequency in Einstein's hypothesis about light quanta. It didn't seem to make sense that a particle could have a frequency, or that a wave could act as if it were made of energetic particles. The two concepts seemed to rule each other out." --http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_p
hotoelectric_effect.html

Well, at least they all used their names when they railed against a new theory. Sure, they were all great physicists, but first and foremost, like Bohr, they were rugged *cowboys*.

Gamow loved cowboys & Westerns too. Check out, "Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious: The Essential George Gamow, The Masterpiece Science Edition (Hardcover)

by George Gamow."

"The Cowboy Experiment

Father's nickname was Joe. Niels Bohr and my father were addicted to western movies while they were in Copenhagen together. All the cowboys in these movies—Gary Cooper types—were called Joe. That's how Father's nickname came about—he was named after a typical cowboy movie hero.

Bohr had some difficulty with cowboy movies. Being a great physicist he took things very literally. After seeing one of the many films in which there was a shootout between a good guy in a white hat and a bad guy in a black hat, Bohr asked Father, "How is it possible that the man in the black hat always reaches... "

--http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Tompkins-Gets-Serious-Masterpiece
/dp/0131872915

Even more important than MDT is that we bring that classic, epic, western, heroic, cowboy spirit on back; for it is the true source of all enduring art and sicence, of truth and freedom, of rugged romance, beauty, and elegance--that rugged, lone truth seeker is how physics has ever advanced.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

"The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for “conscious” control or “conscious” planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme—while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." –F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

You can stand him up at the gates of hell, but he won't back down. Bruno, Socrates, Galileo, Dante, Einstein, Gamow, and Bohr--they all walked and spoke freely in plain sight, and stuck by their guns when the chips were down. They, like Odysseus, were classic, epic cowboys, always standing up against the anonymous, faceless mob for truth, reason, and justice.

Well, we've all got a showdwon commin'. And if you call down the thunder, you've got to man up and face it at high noon--you can't just run and hide and use snarky, postmodern math in the dark of night, sneaking up anonymously behind the mysterious stranger. For ultimately, as Feynman knew, science is not advanced by those seeking fame and fortune--tenure and titles--but by those seeking truth and classic, epic honor.

Perhaps we ought make a list of Bohr's and Gamow's favorite Westerns.

"Bohr was very fond of seeing Western (cowboy) movies in which gun duels are quite common. In all such duels, the villain draws his gun but the hero always shoots down the scoundrel first. Bohr had an explanation for this phenomenon, ascribing this as the difference between wilful and conditioned thinking. “The scoundrel has to think and decide when to go for his gun, which slows his action, while the hero acts faster because he acts, without thinking, the moment he sees the scoundrel reaching for his gun.” When nobody agreed with his theory, he bought a pair of toy guns and playing the hero, tried duels with his pupils. Surprisingly, he ‘killed’ everybody who tried to take a shot at him first." --from http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/030420/dmag21.htm

The
one thing I want to make clear throughout this is that the main question here is why must you remain anonymous? Is it because you do not believe your words and do not want to have your name associated with them? Is it because you do not want your department chair or funders to see your childlike namecalling and ad-hominem attacks that you use instead of logic and reason? Is it because you think that simple logic and reason is not enough, and that snarky namecalling and childish put-downs accomplish what your logic and reason cannot? Please focus on my questions here, and please answer, as I am answering your questions, even though you do not want to meet at high noon, but you prefer to catcall from behind a mask and shoot your opponent in the back, like a coward.

Niels Bohr had a lot to say about the Cowboy Code, and therein we can find insights as to why your behavior ultimately loses both on the cultural and scientific levels:

From: http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-ni
els-bohr.html

"The great Danish Physicist Niels Bohr, an avid Western film fan, wondered why in all the final shoot-outs, the hero shoots faster even if his adversary is the first to reach for his gun. Bohr asked himself if some physical truth might not explain this convention. He came to the conclusion that such a truth did indeed exist: the first to draw is the slowest because he decides to shoot, and dies. The second to draw lives because he is faster, and he is faster because he doesn't have to decide, he is decided. This brilliant discovery was the result of a whimsical empirical research: Bohr and his assistants went off to a toy shop, bought water pistols , and back in their laboratory duelled for hours and hours."

--http://holasunshinegirl.blogspot.com/2006/07/westerns-and-
niels-bohr.html

So it is that you decided to shoot first in the dark of night, from behind a mask like a lowly outlaw, and thus made my decision for me. EBohr--a Dane--had a great appreciation for the Cowboy--for honor and integrity--for Truth and Justice. Too, too many postmodern "physicists," such as yourself, have lost that honorable, noble spirit. The classic, epic showdown goes back 2800 years to The Odyssey, when Odysseus rides back on into his home, disguised as a beggar. Eventually he alone strings the bow and slays all the false suitors to his wife who kicked him around and spat on him--that eternal faceless, nameless mob which you, and all too many postmodern physicists, run with. But alas, they banned *The Odyssey* from the academy, and thus your behavior dominates.

What we have here is an evolution and paradigm shift, and deep down you sense it. That is the source for your emotional vitriol. If you were certain that I was wrong, you would calmly state so and let your Word--let your Name--let your Reason speak for themsleves. But as you are driven by emotions you do not understand, and as you do not have faith in your Word nor reason, and are embarrassed by it and/or your Name, you hide behind anonimity. Perhaps you do not wish to badmouth MDT, as you sense that in a year or so you may be seeking funding to support your MDT research.

A few major forces have ever driven the evolution of physics: The realization that math is actually telling us something about the *physical* nature of reality, the realization that one thing that was formerly believed to be stationary moves, the realization that two disparate entities are actually the same--as in space/time, wave/particle, mass/enegery, and the relaization that we must not ignore physical realtity just to have some fancy-shmancy math/science fiction.

Well, MDT is driven by all these forces.

Consider the equation x4 = ict .

x4 represents the fourth dimension. Now Einstein taught us that dimensions are very, very real *physical* entities. They can bend. They can warp. They can *move*. The fourth dimension is a *physical* entity.

i is the imaginary number--the square root of -1.

c is the *physical* velocity of light. c is a *physical* entity. we generally know it by the *physical* enity of the photon.

t is time--that *physical* parameter--that ever-moving force none can deny, except for some advanced postmodern physicists, who wish to keep quantum gravity, which does not exist, and get rid of time, which does, in fact, exist.

So it is that we have a *physical* equation telling us the relationship between *physical* entities.

x4 = ict.

The glaring mistake you make, pilgrim, is asserting that

x4 = ict is not a physical equation, relating physical quantities. How embarrassing! No wonder you must remain anonymous. Imagine if your department chair or funders found out!

I take great pride in MDT's simplicity, elegance, and boldness. You, the anonymous masked dwarf, like all too many physicists over the past thirty years whence Homer's Odyssey was deconstructed, adhere to a debased religion in which postmodern physics must be complicated, snarky, convoluted, indecipherable, filled with advanced, meaningless math that is used to select and promote groupthinkers, and to intimidate and cajole indie thinkers and lone cowboys, while building postmodern bureuacracies (like the machines did in The Matrix)rather than to exalt and explain--rather than to actually perform physics. Your fallen, mean spirit is the dominant brand and trademark of postmodern physics and academia, and your behavior can be seen throughout the internet and academy, where young physicists are taught to engage in groupthink math and snark independent thinkers who come forth with simple logic and reason. The Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM has two chapters entitled The End of Truth and Why The Worst Get on Top. Because of the nature of the system, you feel you are forced into anonymity.

But more and more of us, who agree with Einstein, are banding together, and time, as a *physical* entity, is on our side:

"Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone." --Albert Einstein

As physicists, it is not our job to wallow in snarky, meaningless mathematics and use it to convolute and confound the simple, so as to build postmodern bureaucratic empires, but it is our job to figure out what the math *physically* means.

That is *exactly* what MDT does--it goes back to Einstein's 1912 paper and tells us what the equation x4 = ict *physically* means, granting us new insight into a hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

"But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning." --(Max Planck, 1919 Nobel Prize address, 'The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory')

Something that was once considered to be mere math, is seen to have physical content, implicatioons, and meaning. Something that was once more or less considered to be stationary--the fourth dimension--is seen to be moving. 'Tis a revolutionary affront to the church of wormholes and time travel worthy of burning me at the stake, you can bet all the well-funded, anonymous cowards agree.

And too, where so many dismissed x4 = ict as "meaningless math," I actually noted that it has physcial meaning. Now I know that the highest form of postmodern physicists today are those who can look at an equals sign and deny it exists, just as the postmodern lit professor denies Shakespeare's and Dante's greatness, but I look at an equals sign and see it for what it is, just as I see x4, i, c, and t for what they are--entities in Einstein's 1912 Mansucript which are related in a *physical* manner.

And from MDT's simple postulate and equation we naturally get all of relativity in a 4D universe where the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. This also shows that time, as measured on our watches, is an emergent phenomena that arises because the propagation of photons, which are but matter carried upon the fourth expanding dimensions. The expansion of the fourth dimension distributes locality and thus is the cause of quantum entanglement, as well as qm's general features such as wave-particle duality and its probabilistic nature, wherein a photon has an equal chance of being found anywhere upon the nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probability distribution defined by the expansion of the fourth dimension, manifested in our three spatial dimensions. Entropy, and time and all its arrows and assymetries, can also be seen to arise naturally from MDT, and too, all the dualties--space/time, energy/mass, and wave/particle--are shown to have a common source.

Yes, anonymous coward, I am going to have to stick with Moving Dimensions Theory's simple beauty and elegance, which unifies so much of our entirety with a comon *physical* model. All the NSF mondey in the world, and the approval of your department chair and grad students, could not force me to change my mind--the fourth dimension moves and expands independent of the three spatial dimensions.

And I encourage you to choose MDT over your anomymous, cowardly, snarkfest behavior, which is intellectual violence unbecoming of a physicist.

For your unmanly, dishonorabe snark and bitter mean-spiritedness, we cannot forgive you, anonymous coward, and we hope you change your ways are man up and walk into town with your head held high, proud of your word and honor--proud of the Name your parents gave you. But for your refusal to recognize that the simple math can sometimes be telling us something profound and new about physics, perhaps we *can* forgive you, as even Planck did not believe the deeper implications of the quantum theory he developed. Einstein did.

Planck lectured at Columbia, "Consequently, there remains only the one conclusion, that previous electron theories suffer from an essential incompleteness which demands a modification, but how deeply this modification should go into the structure of the theory is a question upon which views are still widely divergent. J. J. Thompson inclines to the most radical view, as do J. Larmor, A. Einstein, and with him I. Stark who even believe that the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a pure vacuum does not occur precisely in accordance with the Maxwellian field equations, but in definite energy quanta hv.

I am of the opinion, on the other hand, that at present it is not necessary to proceed in so revolutionary a manner, and that one may come successfully through by seeking the significance of the energy quanta hv solely in the mutual actions with which the resonators influence one another. A definite decision with regard to these important questions can only be brought about as a result of more experience."--(From Max Planck's famous Columbia Lectures)

From: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_pho
toelectric_effect.html

"Experimentalists railed at the prospect of what Einstein's equation of the photoelectric effect implied. Robert Millikan, the very man who showed that the equation really did work, would have nothing to do with its physical interpretation. In 1915, Millikan wrote: "The semicorpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present wholly untenable." Three years later, Ernest Rutherford, the great New Zealand physicist who probed the structure of the atom, said there appeared to be "no physical connection" between the energy and frequency in Einstein's hypothesis about light quanta. It didn't seem to make sense that a particle could have a frequency, or that a wave could act as if it were made of energetic particles. The two concepts seemed to rule each other out." --http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/E/Einstein_and_p
hotoelectric_effect.html

Well, at least they all used their names when they railed against a new theory. Sure, they were all great physicists, but first and foremost, like Bohr, they were rugged *cowboys*.

Gamow loved cowboys & Westerns too. Check out, "Mr. Tompkins Gets Serious: The Essential George Gamow, The Masterpiece Science Edition (Hardcover)

by George Gamow."

"The Cowboy Experiment

Father's nickname was Joe. Niels Bohr and my father were addicted to western movies while they were in Copenhagen together. All the cowboys in these movies—Gary Cooper types—were called Joe. That's how Father's nickname came about—he was named after a typical cowboy movie hero.

Bohr had some difficulty with cowboy movies. Being a great physicist he took things very literally. After seeing one of the many films in which there was a shootout between a good guy in a white hat and a bad guy in a black hat, Bohr asked Father, "How is it possible that the man in the black hat always reaches... "

--http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Tompkins-Gets-Serious-Masterpiece
/dp/0131872915

Even more important than MDT is that we bring that classic, epic, western, heroic, cowboy spirit on back; for it is the true source of all enduring art and sicence, of truth and freedom, of rugged romance, beauty, and elegance--that rugged, lone truth seeker is how physics has ever advanced.

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

"The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for “conscious” control or “conscious” planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme—while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." –F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

You can stand him up at the gates of hell, but he won't back down. Bruno, Socrates, Galileo, Dante, Einstein, Gamow, and Bohr--they all walked and spoke freely in plain sight, and stuck by their guns when the chips were down. They, like Odysseus, were classic, epic cowboys, always standing up against the anonymous, faceless mob for truth, reason, and justice.

Well, we've all got a showdwon commin'. And if you call down the thunder, you've got to man up and face it at high noon--you can't just run and hide and use snarky, postmodern math in the dark of night, sneaking up anonymously behind the mysterious stranger. For ultimately, as Feynman knew, science is not advanced by those seeking fame and fortune--tenure and titles--but by those seeking truth and classic, epic honor.

Perhaps we ought make a list of Bohr's and Gamow's favorite Westerns.

"Bohr was very fond of seeing Western (cowboy) movies in which gun duels are quite common. In all such duels, the villain draws his gun but the hero always shoots down the scoundrel first. Bohr had an explanation for this phenomenon, ascribing this as the difference between wilful and conditioned thinking. “The scoundrel has to think and decide when to go for his gun, which slows his action, while the hero acts faster because he acts, without thinking, the moment he sees the scoundrel reaching for his gun.” When nobody agreed with his theory, he bought a pair of toy guns and playing the hero, tried duels with his pupils. Surprisingly, he ‘killed’ everybody who tried to take a shot at him first." --from http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/archive/030420/dmag21.htm

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

This is the real Dr. E as can be verified by my ip address.

Two more posts were made by someone forging my identity--

The Oct. 7, 2008 @ 07:36 GMT and the Oct. 7, 2008 @ 10:50 GMT posts were made by someone forging the "Dr. E" identity. FQXI can easily tell the difference between the real and fake Dr. E's by looking at the IP addresses. That would be cool if someone could change...

view entire post

This is the real Dr. E as can be verified by my ip address.

Two more posts were made by someone forging my identity--

The Oct. 7, 2008 @ 07:36 GMT and the Oct. 7, 2008 @ 10:50 GMT posts were made by someone forging the "Dr. E" identity. FQXI can easily tell the difference between the real and fake Dr. E's by looking at the IP addresses. That would be cool if someone could change the fake Dr. E's name to "Fake Dr. E," or simply remove the fake posts.

So there you have it. Ad-hominem attacks, anonimity, forged identities, snarky games, libel, and defamation are the tactics some players in the postmodern physics establishment must employ.

Forging my identity, libel, snark, and slander, cannot stop the fourth dimension from expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions (dx4/dt=ic), just as the Inquisition was unable to stop the earth from revolving about the sun by placing Galileo under house arrest and burning Bruno alive. E pur si muove!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pur_si_muove!

The glaring question is, why all the anonimity and negative energy? With all the unanswered questions out there, with all the mysterious beauty that surrounds us, why do some choose ad-hominem attacks, anonimity, forged identities, libel, snark, and defamation, over simple logic, reason, and physics?

Luckily such players are in the minority, but yet, the modern technologies present them with a vehicle by which they may amplify their debauched noise and distract and deform an online community in manners far greater than their name and stature would allow in the real world.

Everyone should get a copy of Nobel Laureate economist F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and read the two chapters, "The End of Truth," and "Why The Worst Get on Top."

Again, everyone should check out Peter Woit's blog and Lee Smolin's lecture on this: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=894

Peter blogs,

"Many of the talks are now available on-line here. I’ve only had time to watch a couple of them, but one that I found worth paying attention to was Lee Smolin’s. He covered some of the same issues discussed in his book, including the question of what science is, the ethics of how it is pursued, and the difficulties of encouraging new ideas. The discussion with the audience was also quite fascinating, including an exchange about differences between the American and British academic systems, with a British participant describing his shock at seeing how much the “American academic system is a training in sycophancy”.

Peter continues,

"The topic of blogs came up mainly in a section where Smolin discussed the ethical importance of scientists putting their name and reputation behind what they have to say about their science. He characterized anonymous criticism as one of the main reasons for the low signal/noise ratio and nasty environment of the comment sections of many blogs, describing this as far worse than anything he had encountered in his professional career, and something that is giving science a bad name. The theoretical physics group at Harvard in the 1970s was given as an example of about the worst it could get in academia. At the end of the discussion session, Paul Ginsparg took him to task about this, saying that he had been there too and it wasn’t that bad. I was there at the same time as both of them, and remember it as a rather unfriendly environment with a quite high arrogance level. But, with faculty like Coleman, Weinberg, Glashow, and postdocs like Witten, the talent and accomplishments of the people involved seemed to justify quite a bit of arrogance.

Ginsparg went on to agree with Smolin about anonymity on blogs, comparing trying to have a serious discussion in such an environment to trying to do so in a Fellini movie, being attacked by dwarves wearing masks." --from http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=894

And I also highly recommend Lee's lecture:

http://pirsa.org/08090035/

"Science as an ethical community

Speaker(s): Lee Smolin

Abstract: I develop the idea that science works because scientists form communities defined by a set of ethical principles which, even if imperfectly applied, tend to lead to progress in our understanding of nature. While these communities have long been international, the combination of the internet with cheap airfare and easy migration of educated people makes scientists into 'global souls', in Pico Iyer's phrase. This opens up new opportunities and also new challenges for the thriving of scientific communities."

Best,

Dr. E

(the real, real Dr. E, as can be verified by the ip address of this post)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello Kyle,

I'm back to answer your question from ealrier--you wrote: "Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx4/dt=ic, if I may ask?"

Well, I guess it all goes back to asking "why?"

That deeper "why" about foundational questions, that needs a *physical* answer--an answer I finally found in...

view entire post

Hello Kyle,

I'm back to answer your question from ealrier--you wrote: "Overall, I read your essay with interest, and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say I was impressed. How did you come up with dx4/dt=ic, if I may ask?"

Well, I guess it all goes back to asking "why?"

That deeper "why" about foundational questions, that needs a *physical* answer--an answer I finally found in the *physical* reality MDT presents. I was asking questions like:

*Why* time, I wondered my freshman year at Princeton, when I still believed in the block universe I had read about. Why does it move, and why is now "now?" if relativity makes all nows equal? Why can't I get back to yesterday's now and that 1989 summertime when the days were long?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7T8CRC4TI

Well, MDT answeres this. Alas, they, like the block universe, do not exist. But, we do get free will!



*Why* does time stop at the speed of light? "Because relativity says so," is how physicists are generally trained to respond. Yes, I would answer, but "why? Why are photons ageless, and why do two initially interacting photons remain entangled? What secret, deeper reality of our universe dictates that this must be so?"

I think all the questions started back in the late eighties/early nineties with "Why length contraction?" "Because relativity says so," is how physicists are generally trained to respond. Yes, I would answer, but "*why?*"

And in 1990, I remember standing in P.J. Peebles office, who I had for Quantum Mechanics, asking him how it could be that an ageless photon was ultimately defined by a spherically-symmetric wave-front expanding at c through our three spatial dimensions. This struck me as odd. That same year I worked on projects pertaining to relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (EPR/delayed choice/spooky entanglement) with John Archibald Wheeler. And it struck me that both were ultimately founded upon curiosities that rested upon measurement, and measurement always somehow rests upon light, which is wed to time.

“My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light velocity.” –Einstein

So maybe, maybe, if we could find the primal force that powers light--if we could perceive the deeper reality which renders photons ageless and bestows upon them the unchanging, constant velocity of c--which is both independent of the observer and the source--if we could catch up with a light beam and find out exactly what it was that ordinary matter was surfing on when it became light propagating at c--perhaps we could unify a helluva lot in quantum mechanics, relativity, and statistical mechanics, as MDT does.

What is the *physical* reason for length contraction? What *physical* entities of this universe give rise to length contraction? What deeper *physical* reality dictates that any moving object must be foreshortened in the direction of its motion? What is *physically* going on on a deeper level? There must be some *primary* cause--some universal invariant--for length contraction, time dilation, entropy, entanglement, nonlocality, and time and all its arrows and assymetries, and all the dualities--space/time, mass/energy, and wave/particle.

And then, as time went on, I found I was able to answer a wide array of foundational questions with: "Because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimension: dx4/dt = ic." And I went back to Einstein's original words and found that he had never quite provided a deeper motivation for setting x4 = ict, other than that it works! Well, x4 = ict because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

And this small recognition of a primary universal invariant answered an abundance of questions with a *physical* model. When when diverse questions spanning all realms of physics are answered by a common *physical* model, surely that points the way to unification!

Here are some of the questions that are answered with "because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions."

0. Why time? Why time’s arrows and asymmetries?

1. Why is light’s velocity a constant c?

2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?

3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c?

4. Why does a photon, which travels at c, not age?

5. Why does a photon’s spherically symmetric path define simultaneity—a locality in the fourth dimension?

6. Why are energy and mass equivalent? Why E=mc^2?

7. Why do all of time’s arrows point in the same direction—towards dissipation, decoherence, and entropy?

8. Why do so many physicists say time is the fourth dimension, when Einstein never said x4 is time, but instead said x4 = ict?

9. Why can matter can appear as energy or mass?

10. Why is it that when matter appears as pure energy, it propagates at c through space?

11. Why does all matter have particle—local—and wave—nonlocal—properties?

12. Why does all energy have particle—local—and wave—nonlocal—properties?

13. Why is it that when matter appears as stationary mass it propagates at c through the fourth dimension?

14. Why is it that when matter appears as energy, it propagates at c through the three spatial dimensions?

15. Why is it that to move at c through space is to stand still in the fourth dimension?

16. Why is it that to move at c through the fourth dimension is to stand still in space?

17. Why is it that all objects move at but one speed through space-time—c?

18. Why is the universe expanding?

19. Why does radiation expand outwards, but not inwards?

20. Why do we see retarded waves, but not advanced?

21. Why is it that entropy imitates the general motion of all radiation and the universe’s expansion—a spherically-symmetric expanding wave?

22. Why is it that Huygens’ Principle, which underlies all reality ranging from QED to Feynman’s many-paths, to classical physics, state that every point of a spherically-expanding wavefront is in turn a spherically-expanding wavefront?

23. Why are all photons described by a spherically-expanding wavefront propagating at c?

24. Why is it that two initially-interacting photons remain entangled, no matter how far they travel apart?

25. Why is it that two initially-interacting photons remain the exact same age, no matter how far they travel apart?

26. Why is it that Young’s double-slit experiments show that both mass and energy have nonlocal wave properties?

27. Why is it that the collapse of the wave function is immediate in the photoelectric effect?

28. Why is there no way for an object to gain velocity without being reduced in length via relativistic length contraction?

29. Why does a photon trace out a null vector through space-time? How can movement across teh universe describe a path of zero length

30. Why does time’s arrow point in a definitive direction?

21. Why does entropy increase?

32. Why do moving clocks run slow?

33. Why is time travel into the past impossible?

34. Why does free will exist?

35. Why is it that time is not frozen—-how come the block universe does not exist? Why do we have free will?

36. Why does a photon’s probabilistic wavefront travel at c?

37. Why is the velocity of quantum entanglement c? Why is it that only initially interacting particles can yet be entangled? Why is it that they must first share a common locality or origin, in order to share an entangled nonlocality when tehy are separated?

38. Why is it that in Schroedinger’s equation, the first derivative with respect to the fourth dimension is proportional to the second derivative with the respect to the three spatial dimensions? Any change in position in the fourth expanding dimension is an acceleration in the three spatial dimensions.

39. Why is it that a photon emitted from the sun is red-shifted as it travels away? It's wavelength appears longer as it is measured against space that is less-stretched. A photon inherits the local geometry of the space-time where it was emitted.

40. Why do clocks in gravitational fields run slow?

41. Why are photons red-shifted as they move away from massive objects, and blue-shifted as they move towards them?

42. Why the conservation laws? Why does an object maintain its rotation in space time, unless acted upon by an exterior force?

43. Why is the velocity of every object through space-time c?

44. Why is it that the only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions?

45. Why is it that the only way to remain stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c relative to the fourth dimension?

46. Why does a photon have zero rest mass, and how does zero rest mass imply the velocity of light? None of the object’s matter exists in the three spatial dimensions, but only in the fourth expanding dimension.

47. Why time's arrows?

48. Why time's assymetries?

49. Why entropy?

50. Why is there an i in x4=ict?

51. Why is the velocity of light both independent of the velocity of the source and the velocity of the observer?

52. Why are light, time, and measurement so fundamentally related?

And over the years, MDT has provided a *physical* model that answered these and other questions, unifying diverse fields and physical phenomena in a common, simple principle.

As I said, I think all the questions started back in the late eighties/early nineties with "why length contraction?"

Why does an object become foreshortened in the direction of its motion? Why is it that the only way for something to move is to become shorter in the direction of its motion?

Consider a ruler--it gets shorter as it moves due to length contraction.

But wait, does not a ruler also appear shorter as it rotates? Consider a ruler at the end of a football field, parallel to the field goals. As it rotates, it will appear shorter and shorter to us, standing at the other end of the field. Have you ever noticed this illusion, as a rotating radar on a distant ship looks like something that keeps contracting and expanding? It is hard for us to tell it is rotating--rather we might actually guess that it is actually getting physically shorter and longer.

And I saw that relativistic length contraction is a rotation of sorts. The ruler is rotated out of our three spatial dimensions. But what is it rotated into? It is rotated into the fourth dimension. But why, when this happens, does the ruler always, always propagate in the direction of its foreshortening? Well, it is because the fourth dimension--the dimension which the ruler is being rotated into--is moving. Thus relativistic length contraction is always, always accompanied by a change in velocity.

Then, the - sign in the spacetime metric puzzled me. Why does x4 have a - sign infront of it? What is a photon telling us by defining a null vector? It can cross the universe, and yet not travel at all? Ahaha! For in the fourth dimension, it has not moved, as the fourth dimension has been moving with it, just as a surfer stays with the wave they ride. This brings de Broglies' pilot waves to mind...

Well, that's some of the story behind MDT. An early version of it appeared in my dissertation:

http://elliotmcgucken.com/dissertation.html

Best
,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello Kyle,

I just spent two hours revising my post from yesterday, as I felt I could better answer your question! It is far more detailed, but unfortunately it is also longer! Wish I could merely log in and edit the previous answer/post. I have taken your advice and posted it elsewhere, on a blog I set up today:

http://movingdimensionstheory.blogspot.com/

Let me focus on...

view entire post

Hello Kyle,

I just spent two hours revising my post from yesterday, as I felt I could better answer your question! It is far more detailed, but unfortunately it is also longer! Wish I could merely log in and edit the previous answer/post. I have taken your advice and posted it elsewhere, on a blog I set up today:

http://movingdimensionstheory.blogspot.com/

Let me focus on your above question.

I actually had the idea for Moving Dimensions Theory long before I laid eyes on Einstein's 1912 Manuscript a few years back--I bought the 1912 Manuscript in 2005 in Durham, NC, I think. Seeing his manuscript was when it all came together, as I saw that Einstein did not quite tell us *why* x4 = ict. Nor does he provide any justification for x4 = ict, other than that it works!

Einstein treated the principle of relativity as a fundamental law--MDT derives realtivity from a deeper invariance--a hitherto unsung aspect of our universe--the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial diemnsions: dx4/dt=ic.

But years before 2005, I was saying that time is a moving dimension, as shown in the below usenet/forum posts--this of course was an inaccurate version of the present theory, which sees time not as a dimension, but as a parameter that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions--here is a 2001 post (I only agree with parts of this usenet post today, but I agree with the conclusion! "The underlying fabric of all reality, the dimensions themselves, are moving relative to one another." ):

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/brow
se_thread/thread/39a42b0afbe3dc2e/efdf36bd57015666?hl=en&lnk
=st&q=%22Moving+Dimensions%22#efdf36bd57015666

And here is another 2001 post:

http://jollyroger.com/physics/htm/Forum1/HTML/000007.html

(I only agree with parts of this post today, as time is not a dimension)

However, I agree with the final conclusion! "The underlying fabric of all reality, the dimensions themselves, are moving relative to one-another."

I hope these 2001 posts, which echo the appendix of my 1998 physics PH.D. dissertation, help shed light on how MDT came to me.

You can see in those 2001 posts that I did not quite grasp that dx4/dt = ic. But yet, you can tell what I'm getting at. I had not yet realized that time is not the fourth dimension. It had been pounded into our heads over and over again, in all books and popular treatments of relativity, that time is the fourth dimension and we live in a block universe. But I was rebelling against this. Something is different about the coordinate x4--something is moving! Motion and time seem to be embedded in all realms of physical reality, and thus we needed an equation that embedded motion and change in the fundamental fabric of spacetime, which MDT does. I think that treating time as a fourth dimension has lead to vast confusion as to the true physical nature of time, as I say so in the abstract of my paper.

And so I was quite surprised to find that in Einstein's 1912 Manuscript, he never explicity states time is the fourth dimension! Einstein does not state that time is the fourth dimension, but rather he writes x4 = ict, which naturally implies dx4/dt = ic.

The following, which is on the new blog post, is interesting:

http://movingdimensionstheory.blogspot.com/

It is interesting that Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a primary law not deduced from anything else.

Well, I guess I was dumb enough to even ask, "why relativity?"

And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. Change is fundamentally embedded in space-time. And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we had a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum nonlocality and entanglement. MDT accounts for the the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing it as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a *physical* basis for E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

On page 37 of "Einstein's Mistakes, The Failings of Human Genius," by Hans Ochanian, we read,

"Einstein acknowledged hid debt to Newton and to Maxwell, but he was not fully aware of the extent of Galileo's fatherhood. In an introduction he wrote for Galileo's celebrated fatherhood. In an introduction he frote for Galileo's celebrated Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, he faults Galileo for failing to produce a general mathematical proof. Galileo regarded relativity as an empirical, observational fact, that is, a law of nature, and Einstein's own formulation of the Principle of Relativity three hundred years later imitated Galileo's in treating this principle as a law of nature and not as a mathematical deduction from anything else."

Well, MDT provides a more fundamental law with an equation: dx4/dt = ic, from which relativity is derived in my paper. And an added benefit are all the other entities dx4/dt=ic accounts for with a *physical* model.

What I need to do for you is to dig out my 1998 dissertation and look at the appendix, where I set an early version down formally--I'm pretty sure it's pretty much the same thing as the 2001 posts, and I'm pretty sure I stated, "As physics concerns itself at all levels with changes relative to both space and time, it makes sense that all physics, time, motion, reality, life, and consciousness itself are founded upon a stage which is endowed with intrinsic motion."--I'm pretty sure this exact sentence is in my 1998 dissertation--I will try to dig it up and scan it in!

Hope this helps & thanks for the questions!

I know even my short responses are long. :)

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Thanks for the specific questions, Kyle--it is a great opportunity to better hone MDT and practice communicating its basic tenets.

Please forgive me for answering two of your questions--feel free to read the two different answers at your convenience. :)

2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?

No matter how fast an object is moving, when it emits a photon,...

view entire post

Thanks for the specific questions, Kyle--it is a great opportunity to better hone MDT and practice communicating its basic tenets.

Please forgive me for answering two of your questions--feel free to read the two different answers at your convenience. :)

2. Why is light’s velocity c independent of its source?

No matter how fast an object is moving, when it emits a photon, that photon is carried by the fourth expanding dimension. Now dx4/dt = ic is an invariant of the universe, independent of the motion of an object, so no matter how fast a flashlight is moving when it is turned on, it is the invariant expansion of the fourth dimension (dx4/dt=ic) that carries the photon away from the flashlight, and the invariant expansion does not care about the flashlight's velocity. So it is that c is independent of the velocity of the source!

3. Why is it that nothing can travel faster than c? All motion in the entire universe arises from the fundamental invariant dx4/dt = ic--the fourth dimension's expansion relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. Did you know, Kyle, that there is but one velocity for every single entity through space-time? That is c. Brian Greene has an excellent treatment of this in The Elegant Universe. Both a book sitting on a table and a photon are moving at c through space-time. So it is that nothing can travel slower than c through space-time either. Components of an object's velocity, may vary across the four dimensions--but the singular net velocity through 4D space-time is always c for all objects and entities. A photon moves at c through the three spatial dimensions (while remaining stationary in the fourth dimension), while a "stationary" object in the lab moves through the fourth dimension at c. This alone is enough to prove that the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. c is the one, unique velocity through space-time because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. A photon surfs this expanding dimension, and thus while it remains stationary in the fourth dimension (ageless and timeless), it moves at c through the three spatial dimensions. A photon cannot go any faster than c, as it has already caught up with the wavefront of the source of all motion in the universe--the expanding fourth dimension.

Basically all your questions can be readily answered by relativity, and as relativity can be derived from MDT, all your questions can be answered by MDT in a more fundamental manner, as MDT presents a *physical* model appealing to the deeper *why*. Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a law of nature not deduced from anything else, and well, I guess I was dumb enough to ask, 'why relativity?' And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic. Change is fundamentally embedded in space-time.

You write, "You’ve said the physical meaning of “i” is that the fourth is an “imaginary dimension,” whatever that means."

What do you mean, "whatever that means?" I explain in the above posts and in my paper that Einstein stated thus, and I explain also what it means. As a physicist you should never be content with "whatever that means." :) From an above post: "the only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c relative to the three spatial dimensions. more clues are discussed in the paper, where towards the bottom of page 6, i write: "Einstein definitively states x4 = ict, and time and ict are very different entities. Einstein states, “One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u (which Einstein sometimes writes as x4) is always purely imaginary.” It is imaginary because the expansion of the fourth dimension is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions in every direction . . ."

I encourage you to read the above posts that pertain to this further.

Thanks again Kyle,

I think you will be pleased that this post, while probably not short enough, is shorter!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Thanks Kyle,

Feel free to have your colleauge contact me at drelliot@gmail.com -- I'll be happy to converse with them and even speak to them or anyone by phone too about MDT.

Also, the MDT paper is about ten pages--it is fairly concice. Has your colleague read it? What did they think?

Einstein stated that everything must be made as simple as possible, but not moreso, as...

view entire post

Thanks Kyle,

Feel free to have your colleauge contact me at drelliot@gmail.com -- I'll be happy to converse with them and even speak to them or anyone by phone too about MDT.

Also, the MDT paper is about ten pages--it is fairly concice. Has your colleague read it? What did they think?

Einstein stated that everything must be made as simple as possible, but not moreso, as oversimplifying something can lead to greater complexity and confusion.

So your question, "What happens to the flashlight? Isn’t it also carried by the fourth expanding dimension?"

In order for a flashlight to move it must somehow find itself rotated into the fourth expanding dimension. So yes, I would argue that ultimately a flashlight gains velocity by existence in the fourth expanding dimension.

Instead of a flashlight, consider a ruler--feel free to place a light at one end of the ruler so that it effectively becomes a flashlight.

Consider the ruler--it gets shorter as it moves due to relativistic length contraction.

But wait, does not a ruler also appear shorter as it rotates? Consider a ruler at the end of a football field, parallel to the field goals. As it rotates, it will appear shorter and shorter to us, as we stand at the other end of the field, looking on. Have you ever noticed this illusion, as a rotating radar on a distant ship looks like something that keeps contracting and expanding? It is hard for us to tell the object is rotating--rather we might actually guess that it is actually getting physically shorter and longer.

These youtube videos almost illustrate this rotating radar effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd6ZxHk2-zA&feature=re
lated

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlsmqWSo8A&feature=rela
ted

And I saw that relativistic length contraction is a rotation of sorts. The ruler/flashlight is rotated out of our three spatial dimensions as it gains velocity, so it appears shorter. But what is it rotated into? It is rotated into the fourth dimension as energy and momentum are added to it, as its growing energy component exists in teh ofurth dimension. But why, when this happens, does the ruler always, always propagate in the direction of its foreshortening? Well, it is because the fourth dimension--the dimension which the ruler is being rotated into--is moving! Thus relativistic length contraction is always, always accompanied by a change in velocity.

Rotate something into the fourth dimension, and it gains a translational velocity. Give something a translational velocity, and it will appear foreshortened in our three spatial dimensions. All because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions or dx4/dt = ic.

Then, right after I pondered length contraction, the - sign in the space-time metric puzzled me. Why does x4 have a - sign in-front of it? How is x4 different from the three spatial dimensions? What is a photon telling us by defining a null vector? A photon can cross the universe, and yet not travel at all? Ahaha! For in the fourth dimension, it has not moved, as the fourth dimension has been moving with it, just as a surfer stays with the wave they ride. This brings de Broglies' pilot waves to mind...

So, yes, the ruler gains any motion via the fourth expanding dimension.

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

Hello Kyle,

Thanks for the question--you write, "But if the flashlight also exists in the fourth dimension when it moves at speed v, together with the photon that moves at speed c, then how is it that the speed of the photon WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT (I’m not shouting, just that I have no better way of emphasizing a whole phrase) is not c - v?"

This is a basic relativity...

view entire post

Hello Kyle,

Thanks for the question--you write, "But if the flashlight also exists in the fourth dimension when it moves at speed v, together with the photon that moves at speed c, then how is it that the speed of the photon WITH RESPECT TO THE FLASHLIGHT (I’m not shouting, just that I have no better way of emphasizing a whole phrase) is not c - v?"

This is a basic relativity question. The addition of velocities in Einstein's relativity are different from the addition of velocities in Galileo's relativity, which you seem to be invoking. An excellent book describing all this is: Spacetime Physics by Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler. I highly recommend it!

I could cover the relativistic addition of velocities here, but it would take pages to cover thoroughly, and I would do no better than Taylor & Wheeler.

The *reason* our universe obeys Einstein's relativity is that we reside in a 4D universe wherein the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

Einstein's Relativity may be derived from dx4/dt= ic, which represents a more fundamental invariance of this universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a law of nature not deduced from anything else, and well, I guess I was dumb enough to ask, 'why relativity?' And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we are liberated from the block universe and time and progress in theoretical physics are unfrozen. And change is seen in a most fundamental equation that weaves change into the very fabric of space-time, where it needs to be, as change pervades every realm of physics and all acts of *physical* measurement. And suddenly we have a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum mechanics' nonlocality, entanglement, and wave-particle duality. The fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time. MDT accounts for the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing c as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a physical basis for the dualities--for space/time, wave/matter, and energy/mass or E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

Well, I would call all of this a massive unification--all based on a simple *physical* model and equation. I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg of everything implied by this new physical model--this hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic.

Please let me know if you get your hands on Taylor & Wheeler! I lent one of my copies out, but if it comes back, I would be happy to send it your way.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

“The main purpose of science is simplicity, and as we understand more things, everything is becoming simpler.”

--Edward Teller



Consider a 4D universe (x1, x2, x3, x4) in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity.

It really is this simple. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't...

view entire post

“The main purpose of science is simplicity, and as we understand more things, everything is becoming simpler.”

--Edward Teller



Consider a 4D universe (x1, x2, x3, x4) in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity.

It really is this simple. "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough” --Albert Einstein



“Physics is, hopefully, simple. Physicists are not.”

--Edward Teller



Have you gotten your hands on Einstein's 1912 Manuscript of Relativity? It sometimes seems that you have not read it. I would encourage you to read Einsetin's 1912 Manuscript! I am taking Galileo's advice here in recommending this, “You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself.” --Galileo Galilei



"“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

--Galileo Galilei

Read my paper and Einstein's 1912 Manuscipt of Relativity and you will see that it really is that simple--relativity rests upon the fundamental invariance of this universe: dx4/dt = ic: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, distributing locality and fathering time.

“The only real valuable thing is intuition.” --Albert Einstein. And intuition is from where MDT came over ten years back. I will be scanning in the pages of the appendix of my 1998 dissertation on this! "Multiple unit artificial retina chipset to aid the visually impaired and enhanced holed-emitter CMOS phototransistors"

“Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler.”--Einstein. MDT provides a physical model that unifies diverse physical phenomena.

Consider a 4D universe in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity. And not only does Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) give us all of relativity, but it also liberates us from the block universe and unfreezes time (as well as progress in theoretical physics), while acknowledging free will. MDT also provides a *physical* model for time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, entropy, and quantum mechanical features such as entanglement, nonlocality, and qm's probabilistic nature. MDT provides a *physical* model for the distribution of locality, and the subsequent nonlocal behavior observed throught quantum mechanics.

MDT is a most powerful unifying force. Shakespeare said that brevity is the soul of wit, and MDT is brief: The fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic.

Once again, consider a 4D universe (x1, x2, x3, x4) in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity.

You can see a very brief treatment of this on page 7 of my manuscript (which was kept short due to the fact that the papers are limited to < 5000 words, and I needed space to cover MDT and time and all its arrrows, thermodynamics, the universe's expansion, quantum mechanics, nonlocality, entropy, entanglement, the dualities (space/time, wave/particle, energy,mass), Einstein's Annus Miraiblis, the photoeletric effect, Brownian Motion, Huygens' principle, Bell's Inequalities, relativity, and other physical phenomena), where I write, "Armed with this simple result (x4=ict which was implied by dx4/dt=ic), we are ready to return to Einstein’s 1912 manuscript and provide the motivation for a four-dimensional coordinate system where the fourth dimension is written as x4 = ict. When Einstein wrote x4 = ict, inspired by Minkowski’s work, he never qualified the fundamental motivation for this—the fact that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. When Einstein penned his 1912 manuscript, he did not perceive that relativity’s equivalence of mass and energy and QM’s wave-particle duality—time dilation and the EPR paradox—entropy and length contraction—E=mc^2 and the double slit experiment—could all be accounted for with a fourth expanding dimension. Nor did he recognize that while relativity considers instantaneous frozen snapshots of the universe, quantum mechanics acknowledges the fundamental flux of the expanding fourth dimension, and is thus based on differential operators and probabilistic wavefronts, which acknowledge the perpetual smearing of locality into non-locality, and the emergence of time."

It really is this simple: Consider a 4D universe (x1, x2, x3, x4) in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. All of Einstein's relativity descends from this. Ergo relativity.

I would encourage you to get your hands on Einstein's 1912 Manuscipt, and work through the detailed math.

Einstein's Relativity may be derived from dx4/dt= ic, which represents a more fundamental invariance of this universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a law of nature not deduced from anything else, and well, I guess I was dumb enough to ask, 'why relativity?' And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we are liberated from the block universe and time and progress in theoretical physics are unfrozen. And change is seen in a most fundamental equation that weaves change into the very fabric of space-time, where it needs to be, as change pervades every realm of physics and all acts of *physical* measurement. And suddenly we have a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum mechanics' nonlocality, entanglement, and wave-particle duality. The fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time. MDT accounts for the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing c as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a *physical* basis for the dualities--for space/time, wave/matter, and energy/mass or E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

Well, I would call all of this a massive unification in teh relam of physics--all based on a simple *physical* model and equation. I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg of everything implied by this new physical model that rests upon a hitherto unsung feature of the universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt=ic.

Today is a great day for celebration, as after 100 years or so, we have been liberated from the block universe, and time has been unfrozen.

A more fundamental universal invariant has been discovered--one which weaves change into the fundamental fabric of spcaetime, while granting us free will and the flow of time we perceive and observe in the very act of measurement, liberating us from the block universe, and providing a fundamental, bedrock principle from which all of relativity arises, along with time and its arrows. And too, we get a *physical* model for entropy, entanglement, and nonlocality.

And even moreso, we return to teh heroic age of physics. A lone individual arises to exalt entities, such as simple posutlates and equations, that were the hallmark of that nobler age of physics. Behold MDT's simple postulate and equation which unify diverse physical phenomena in a common principle.

Moving Dimensions Theory—which regards time as an emergent phenomena—was inspired in part by Einstein’s words pertaining to the higher purpose of physical theories--words which ought be nailed above the door of every physics department, so as to liberate us from frozen time and frozen physics: “Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. . . The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial.”

MDT meets, manifests, and exalts all of Einsteine's criterion, enumerated above.

"The purpose of science is not to analyse or describe but to make useful models of the world. A model is useful if it allows us to get use out of it." --Edward De Bono, (b. 1933) Psychologist & Author

MDT allows us to get relativity, entropy, entanglement, nonlocality, time and all its arrows and assymetries, Huygens' principle and other physical phenomena. I would imagine that this is just the tip of the iceberg. If QM and GR are to be unified, perhaps MDT points the way, a sit already shows that phenonema in both QM and relativity can be accounted for with a common principle--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

And too the EPR Paradox is resolved via a simple scientific principle: “By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.”

--Galileo Galilei



dx4/dt=ic is a fact of the universe. The fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the three spatial dimensions. "Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.” --Galileo Galilei



"To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them not to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover.” --Galileo Galilei. Today we are commanded to "forget time," forget free will, forget entanglement and nonlocality, forget the EPR paradox and Godel's problems with the block universe and time, forget the higher purpose of physics, forget both the foundational questions and foundational papers, and forget Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on Relativity--today we are so often commanded to forget reason, brevity, clarity, and beauty--to forget simple, elegant, unifying postulates and equations. We are told to forget The Great Books, honor, simplicity, Galileo, Newton, and the giants whose shoulders they stood upon.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." --Isaac Newton



MDT represents a changing of the guard--the Greats are coming on back, beginning with Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on Relativity and Homer's Odyssey, in which we see the first showdown in all of Western literature. And as we know, Bohr loved Westerns:

--http://www.timelinetheatre.com/copenhagen/cpn_stu
dy_guide.pdf

"Bohr fathered many scientific ‘children’. Almost every country in the world has physicists who proudly say, ‘I used to work with Bohr.’” – George Gamow. Movie Westerns: A Thought ExperimentFor Bohr, any event could become a thought problem. George Gamow, in his book, Thirty Years that Shook Physics, says that Bohr loved movie Westerns. He always took his students along to the movies with him to have them explain the plot complications. After one Western, he began to argue with Gamow and some other students about why the good cowboy always shoots the bad guy even though the bad guy always draws his gun first. Bohr theorized that the hero was quicker because he responded on instinct and was not delayed by having to decide when to shoot. To test the hypothesis Gamow bought cap pistols and Bohr spent an afternoon at the Institute shooting his students." --from http://www.timelinetheatre.com/copenhagen/cpn_study_guide.pd
f

Maybe Lubos/Witten/Smolin/Woit need to watch Westerns together and buy some toy guns/water pistols. Fistful of Dollars should be shown before all String Theory/LQG conferences, as it's a story about lone The Man With No Name riding into a town dominated by two warring gangs/bureaucracies--the Baxters and the Rohos--the String Theorists and LQGers. Directed by the Italian genius Sergio Leone, based on the Japanese Samurai film Yojimbo, and shot for less than $200,000 in Spain, the "Spaghetti Western" film launched Clint Eastwood into international stardom. And watching the movie, one realizes something--when the smoke clears, MDT will yet be standing.

Like all classic Westerns, and stories of scientific advancement, Fistful of Dollars exalts the moral individual over the corrupt bureuacracy. This is communicated in the dialogue:

"When a man with a .45 meets a man with a rifle, the man with a pistol is a dead man." -"Ramon" from A Fistful of Dollars --http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Fistful_of_Dollars

"I'll stick with my forty-fives." -"The man with no name" from A Fistful of Dollars

And later, Eastwood states, "When the man with a 45 meets the man with a rifle, you said the man with a pistol is a dead man. Let's see if it's true."

The translation of this is "When the lone scientist with an original idea meets the man with the millions in funding and a posse of graduate students and postocs, the man with the original idea is a dead man."

Now Ramone can wield the rifle like no other. Ramone always shoots for the heart, and never misses, just like String Theory and LQG never fail, as they attract all the greatest postmodern physicists. And Eastwood uses Ramone's arrogance and pride in his marksmanship--the fact that he never misses the heart, to defeat him. Watch and learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeo52VfDfkU

Western science, philosophy, literature, film, all have a common soul--the exaltation of truth, justice, and the humble, heroic indivdiual, from Homer on down; and without that soul--without that lone cowboy--all is for naught.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with.”" --Max Planck

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

But all too often these days, the science bureuacracies encourage the young mercenaries who join them to laugh at, snark, and mock the man with no name's mule:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADzFve-tKnU

All scientists ought read Homer's Odyssey, from where Leone's Masterpieces descends, as well as Thomas Jeffersons' masterpiece--that Declaration of Independence:

"But as we advance in life these things fall off one by one, and I suspect we are left at last with only Homer and Virgil, perhaps with Homer alone." --Thomas Jefferson



Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek wrote an excellent book called the Road to Serfdom, in which he detailed how central-planning and bureaucracy lead not too the advancement of science, truth, and freedom; but to the very opposite. Two awesome chapeters, whose titles tell half the story, are "The End of Truth" and "Why The Worst Get on Top."

"What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose...

view entire post

Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek wrote an excellent book called the Road to Serfdom, in which he detailed how central-planning and bureaucracy lead not too the advancement of science, truth, and freedom; but to the very opposite. Two awesome chapeters, whose titles tell half the story, are "The End of Truth" and "Why The Worst Get on Top."

"What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?" A wise prophet once asked, and so it is that those with lesser souls are the first to sell out the Truth en route to climbing the bureaucratic ladder to the top. Those bureaucrats who are not the true parents of the child/physics/innovation/truth are more content to see it cut in half and thusly destroyed.

Hayek writes, "The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for “conscious” control or “conscious” planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme—while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose." –F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

Max Planck agreed:

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

And again we see the primacy of the honest individual in the classic, epic hero's journey!

"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man." --Joseph Campbell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

It is so often the lone individual--or the few--standing up against the many. Bertrand Russell talked about how "commonly accepted wisdom" is so often wrong, and how, in fact, the more people that beleived something, the more likely it was often wrong! And Galileo held the individual's reason over the rule of the "authorities," who must preserve the bureaurcacy at all costs--even truth and freedom.

Another historical film that exalts the classical Western ideals of Truth, Science, and Freedom--the few standing herocially against the many for classical ideals--is 300:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/quotes

"Xerxes: There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Sparta from the histories! Every piece of Greek parchment shall be burned. Every Greek historian, and every scribe shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Sparta, or Leonidas, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!

King Leonidas: The world will know that free men stood against a tyrant, that few stood against many, and before this battle was over, even a god-king can bleed."

--from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/quotes

watch it at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZBMFX-Yt68&feature=related

Th
e film is based on the true story about how 300 Sparatns faced down a much-larger force, and thusly preserved the Western ideals of freedom, which so many seem to be forgetting these days across all realm, where all too many say one thing while holding in their hearts another.

"As I detest the doorways of Death, I detest that man who hides one thing. in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another." Achilles, The Ilaid

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.



I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen." --R.P. Feynman, http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

Nobel Laureate (for literature) William Golding wrote, "A little of Leonidas lies in the fact that I can go where I like and write what I like. He contributed to set us free."

One can almost hear the modern god-kings/administrators, who so often over-hype their own theories to raise funding, as Feynman suggests, "For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision." --http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm

Yes, one can hear modern Xerxes/god-kings/administrators:

Modern god-kings/administrators/Xerxes: "There will be no glory in your sacrifice. I will erase even the memory of Moving Dimensions Theory from the histories! Every piece of Einstein's 1912 Manscript shall be burned. Every physicist who references foundational papers, and every scribe who asks foundational questions shall have their eyes pulled out, and their tongues cut from their mouths. Why, uttering the very name of Galileo, or MDT, will be punishable by death! The world will never know you existed at all!"



Well, it's not quite that severe, but there are a lot of humorous parallels!

In addition to being about the hitherto unsung reality of the fourth expanding dimension (dx4/dt=ic)--and the fundamental invariant's wide-ranging implications and unifications across all realms of physics, the final book about MDT is going to be about the classic, epic "Hero's Journey" that defines the Western soul, film, literature, and science--how we lost it, and how we can get it back by rendering classical ideals real on our own hero's journeys.

For what doe sit profit a man to gain the world--to gain knowledge and science--and lose his soul? As has been seen over the past several decades, without that classic, epic soul, theoretical science comes to a standstill.

Perhaps the most heroic Socrates--the mentor to Plato who inscribed "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter" above his Academy--was right about the importances of putting the horse before cart, "For this is the command of God, as I would have you know; and I believe that to this day no greater good has ever happened in the state than my service to the God. For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul. I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private. This is my teaching, and if this is the doctrine which corrupts the youth, my influence is ruinous indeed. But if anyone says that this is not my teaching, he is speaking an untruth. Wherefore, O men of Athens, I say to you, do as Anytus bids or not as Anytus bids, and either acquit me or not; but whatever you do, know that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times."

And again, Socrates exalts Achilles' courage, for all the Greeks reveled in Homer, inclduing those original physicists--Plato and Aristotle:

"Someone will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part of a good man or of a bad. Whereas, according to your view, the heroes who fell at Troy were not good for much, and the son of Thetis above all, who altogether despised danger in comparison with disgrace; and when his goddess mother said to him, in his eagerness to slay Hector, that if he avenged his companion Patroclus, and slew Hector, he would die himself - "Fate," as she said, "waits upon you next after Hector"; he, hearing this, utterly despised danger and death, and instead of fearing them, feared rather to live in dishonor, and not to avenge his friend. "Let me die next," he replies, "and be avenged of my enemy, rather than abide here by the beaked ships, a scorn and a burden of the earth." Had Achilles any thought of death and danger? For wherever a man's place is, whether the place which he has chosen or that in which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think of death or of anything, but of disgrace. And this, O men of Athens, is a true saying." --Socrates, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/apology.html

And I guess that My Commander has placed me at the helm of MDT, and "For wherever a man's place is, whether the place which he has chosen or that in which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think of death or grants or funding or tenure or anything, but of disgrace. And this, O men of Athens, is a true saying."

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

reply to this thread

300 and Fistful of Dollars are actually two of my favorite movies! I'd give anything to watch Westerns with Bohr & Gamow! How cool would that be! Sometimes I actually wish that MDT wasn't right, and that we did, in fact, live in a block universe, so that I could travel back on Michio Kaku's/Paul Davies' time machine and watch a western or two with Bohr. And we'd invite Boltzman too. It's sad...

view entire post

300 and Fistful of Dollars are actually two of my favorite movies! I'd give anything to watch Westerns with Bohr & Gamow! How cool would that be! Sometimes I actually wish that MDT wasn't right, and that we did, in fact, live in a block universe, so that I could travel back on Michio Kaku's/Paul Davies' time machine and watch a western or two with Bohr. And we'd invite Boltzman too. It's sad that Boltzman passed on never knowing how great a success his theory was to become. Would be fun to travel on back and meet King Leonidas too.

One of the great things about MDT is that it is helping fellow physicists in solving long-recognized problems and resolving paradoxes. The EPR Paradox is resolved via the inherent nonlocality of the fourth expanding dimension (which desribes the photon perfectly), and Godel's problems with time in the block universe that relativity seemingly implied are done away with.

A great book that everyone should read is Lee Smolin's THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS: THE RISE OF STRING THEORY, THE FALL OF SCIENCE, AND WHAT COMES NEXT.

Here are some quotes from your rockin' book and my responses:

"Thus all the theories that triumphed had consequences for experiment that were simple to work out and could be tested within a few years. This does not mean that the theories could solved exactly--most theories never are. But it does mean that physical insight lead immediately to a prediction of a new physical effect." -Lee Smolin, The trouble With Physics, The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next

MDT presents a new, deeper, hitherto unsung physical invariance from where all of relativity arises. It also explains physical phenomena such as entanglement and action-at-a-distance as never before, with teh very sme postualte and euqation that account for relativity. And thus it also unifies relativity and QM with a simple *physical* model, which alos accounts for time and all its arrows and assymetries across all realms. MDT shows that quantum mechanical, relativistic, and entropic phenomena derive from the same underlying physical reality--a fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Lee writes in TTWP, "Whatever else one says about string theory, loop quantum gravity, and other approaches, they have not delivered on that front. The standard excuse has been that experiments on this scale are impossible to perform-but, as we've seen, this is not the case. So there must be another reason. I believe there is something basic we are all missing, some wrong assumption we are all making. If this is so, then we need to isolate the wrong assumption and replace it with a new idea." -Lee Smolin, The trouble With Physics, The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next

The wrong assumption originates from the confusion of time with the fourth dimension. Time is not the fourth dimension, but it is an emergent phenomenon that arises from a fourth dimension that is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Time inherits certain properties of the fourth dimension, but the over-extending of the dimensionality of time has lead to troubling and ridiculous situations such as Godel's block universe, wherein time is frozen; and wherein the past, present, and future already exist.

The fourth dimension expands at the rate of c in units of the Planck length. Thus macroscopic objects rarely ever enter into the fourth expanding dimension deeper than the Planck length. A photon is matter that surfs the expanding fourth dimension, jumping from crest to crest of all the tiny expansions of the fourth dimension which manifest themselves as expanding spheres of locality in the three spatial dimensions. Thus a photon appears as a nonlocal, spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront of probability in the three spatial dimensions. Furthermore, a photon does not age as it stays in the exact same place in the fourth expanding dimension, causing its nonlocal, expanding probability wave to translate with a velocity of c in the three spatial dimensions. The expansion of this nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probability distribution that desribes the photon's motion is a most fundamental clue that practically screams at us that the fourth dimension is expanidng relative to the the three spatial dimensions, as a photon remains stationary in the fourth dimension, and thus a photon's spherically-symmetric expanidng wavefront defines a locality in the fourth dimension, no matter how large it gets. Ergo nonlocality and entanglement.

Lee Smolin continues in TTWP, "What could that wrong assumption be? My guess is that it involves two things: the foundations of quantum mechanics and the nature of time. We have already discussed the first; I find it hopeful that new ideas about quantum mechanics have been proposed recently, motivated by studies of quantum gravity. But I strongly suspect that the key is time. More and more, I have the feeling that quantum theory and general relativity are both deeply wrong about the nature of time. It is not enough to combine them. There is a deeper problem, perhaps going back to the origin of physics." -Lee Smolin, The trouble With Physics, The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next

MDT takes us back to the origin of physics, and it presents us with a fundamental view of reality that conforms to all experimental evidence, while not only resolving the paradoxes of the non-locality of the EPR effect and Godel's block universe, but unifying the resolution within a simple physical postulate. Before Einstein's relativity, space and time (as well as matter and energy) were considered to be disparate entities. Einstein's relativity united them, and suddenly time was mistakenly seen as the fourth dimension, rather than as an emergent property of a fourth dimension expanding relative to three spatial dimensions. Then, when Einstein correctly saw that all moving objects are shortened when energy is added-when they are rotated out of the three spatial dimensions and into a fourth dimension-just as a far-away ruler appears shortened as it is rotated, Einstein had the genius to call upon a the four-dimensional formulation of space-time.

However, this lead to confusion; as Einstein did not see that macroscopic object's-rest masses-never enter the fourth dimension deeper than the Planck length. Hence the past and future do not yet exist, but only the present. Nor did Einstein realize that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions-a simple postulate with far-reaching consequences.

Both Einstein and Minkowski wrote x4 = ict, but they never saw that this naturally implied dx4/dt = ic.

And Einstein's Relativity may be derived from dx4/dt= ic, which represents a more fundamental invariance of this universe--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Einstein introduced relativity as a principle--as a law of nature not deduced from anything else, and well, I guess I was dumb enough to ask, 'why relativity?' And I found the answer in a more fundamental invariance--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt = ic.

And not only can all of relativity be derived from this, but suddenly we are liberated from the block universe and time and progress in theoretical physics are unfrozen. And change is seen in a most fundamental equation that weaves change into the very fabric of space-time, where it needs to be, as change pervades every realm of physics and all acts of *physical* measurement. And suddenly we have a *physical* model for entropy, time and its arrows and assymetries in all realms, free will, and quantum mechanics' nonlocality, entanglement, and wave-particle duality. The fourth expanding dimension distributes locality, fathering time. MDT accounts for the constant speed of light c--both its independence of the source and its independence of the velocity of the observer, while establishing c as the fastest, slowest, and only velocity for all entities and objects moving through space-time, as well as the maximum velocity that anything is measured to move. And suddenly we see a *physical* basis for the dualities--for space/time, wave/matter, and energy/mass or E=mc^2. Energy and mass are the same thing--it's just that energy is mass caught upon the fourth expanding dimension, and thus it surfs along at "c."

Dr. Lee Smolin continues in TTWP, "Around the beginning of the seventeenth century, Descartes and Galileo made a wonderful discovery: You could draw a graph, with one axis being space and the other being time. A motion through space then becomes a curve on the graph. In this way, time is represented as if it were another dimension of space. Motion is frozen, and a whole history of constant motion and change is presented to us as something static and unchanging. If I had to guess (and guessing is what I do for a living), this is the scene of the crime". -Lee Smolin, The trouble With Physics, The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next

MDT unfreezes time, liberating us all with free will-the free will to move beyond ST & LQG, which are not inextricably locked into the fixed future of the block universe as Brian Green et al might have you suppose. Neither the future nor the past exists. Motion is inherent in the underlying four-dimensional space-time geometry, as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Finally a postualte and equation step forth to weave change into the fundamental fabric of space-time!

Einstein noted that all objects are moving through space-time at the velocity c. This never changes. An object stationary in the three spatial dimensions is translating through the fourth dimension at the rate of c. An object stationary in the fourth dimension-a photon-is translating through the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c. Hence it is obvious that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

String Theory's greatest contribution to physics has been the utter rejection of the obvious, the denial of common sense, and the institutionalization of thousands of mediocrities to ignore or shout-down any physics that might get in the way of their vast commercial industries which must trump truth-their salaries, benefits, and science-fiction books. Indeed, ST gives full license to make one's ignorance one's arrogance, and thus it is the breeding ground for those with ambitions overshadowing their talents.

Lee Smolin writes in TTWP, "We have to find a way to unfreeze time-to represent time without turning it into space. I have to idea how to do this. I can't conceive of a mathematics that doesn't represent a world as if it were frozen it eternity. It's terribly hard to represent time, and that's why there's a good chance this representation is the missing piece." -Lee Smolin, The trouble With Physics, The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next

MDT unfreezes time, as well as progress in theoretical physics, and liberates us from the block universe!

There actually is no problem with the representation of time in physical theories, but only within the interpretations and extrapolations of modern theorists. Time, as it is defined, works perfectly in quantum mechanics and relativity, as it does in Newtonian mechanics and classical electrodynamics. Hence our cars and computers which work perfectly well each and every day.

However, when the notion of time is warped and extrapolated to suit the fantasies of prominent physicists who ignore login, reason, and experiment, in order to create wormholes and time machines, it only goes to show that time is not the fourth dimension, but an emergent property of a universe wherein a fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Lee Smolin continues in TTWP, "One thing is clear: I can't get anywhere thinking about this problem within the confines of string theory. Since string theory is limited to the description of strings and branes moving in fixed background spacetime geometries, it offers nothing for someone who wants to break new ground thinking about the nature of time or of quantum theory. Background-independent approaches offer a better starting point, because they have already transcended the classical pictures of space and time. And they are simple to define and easy to play with." -Lee Smolin, The trouble With Physics, The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next

Indeed String Theory has banned asking the questions that MDT addresses, such as "What is the nature of the physical framework underlying the observed phenomena of relativity and quantum mechanics?" String theory has bred an entire generation of physicists who believe that politics, hype, and name-calling are to be preferred over logic, reason, and truth to advance physics. String Theory, though funded with hundreds of millions, yet lacks the simple truth and beauty of this postulate and equation--"the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. dx4/dt =ic." It is almost as if simple postulates and equations representing simple physical truths have been banned form physics, along with physics.

Dr. Smolin continues in TTWP, "I won't say any more about this, because I want to move on to a different question. Suppose an intellectually ambitious young person with an original and impatient mind wants to think deeply about the five great questions. Given our failure to solve any of them, I can't imagine why such a person would want to be limited to working in any of the current research programs. Clearly, if string theory or loop quantum gravity by themselves were the answer, we would know it by now. They may be starting points, they may be parts of the answer, they may contain necessary lessons. But the right theory must contain new elements, which our ambitious young person is perhaps uniquely qualified to search for." -Lee Smolin, The trouble With Physics, The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next

Everyone should read George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Perhaps the excessive funding of theories never backed by experiment, nor logic, simplicity, elegance, and reason for that matter, has resulted in institutions that now oppose the advancement of physics. Remember how in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 the firemen existed to light fires and burn books, and not to save them? Well, is it any wonder that Esinetin's 1912 Manuscript is never assigned by the current regime, nor any of the other foundational papers? Imagine a school that assigned the foundational papers in every class! Why not learn relativity from Einstein's 1912 Manuscript? Perhaps then we'll see that he never said that time is the fourth dimension, but rather that x4 = ict.

With mortgages to be paid and families to be supported, who can afford truth and beauty after investing thirty years into mythology and groupthink? Smolin is to be commended for firing a warning shot across the bow of all young physicists--letting them know that they, if they are to be true physicists, are essentially on their own. For the advancement of science has ever been the domain of the individual, as has the creation of all lasting art, philosophy, literature, and culture. Make no mistake-the individual truth seeker is not alone in the context of the greats-they stand upon the shoulders of giants-but they are often alone in the context of their contemporaries. String Theory, by deconstructing great physicists and science, has tried to invert this, placing politics over philosophy and money over meaning, and that is why they are destined to fail. For as Shakespeare said, "foul deeds will rise, thou all the earth overwhelm them, to men's eyes."

Smolin continues in TTWP, "What has my generation has bequeathed to these young scientists? Ideas and techniques they may or may not want to use, together with a cautionary tale of partial success in several directions, resulting in a general failure to finish the job Einstein started a hundred years ago. The worst thing we could do would be to hold them back by insisting that they work on our ideas. So the question for the last part of the book is a question I ask myself every morning: Are we doing all we can to support and encourage young scientists--and, by the virtue of this, ourselves--to transcend what we have done these last thirty years and find the true theory that solves the five greatest problems in physics?" -Lee Smolin, The trouble With Physics, The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of Science, and What Comes Next

Well, I guess the jury is still out on all this. But Max Planck warns us about the centralization of funding and power, as well as the micromanaging of curiosity:

"New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment." --Max Planck

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." --Max Planck

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds." --Einstein (e.g. Boltzman, Bruno, Galileo, Socrates, Dante, Jesus)

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." --Einstein. And the big questions which have driven science have always been asked by an individual.

"Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity." --Einstein. It is interesting to point out that neither ST nor LQG really have equations, nor meaningful postulates, for that matter. Contrast this to MDT: dx4/dt=ic: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatail dimensions.

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge." --Einstein. Yes--the truth does set us free, from the block universe and frozen time and progress in theoretical physics.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

view post as summary

reply to this thread

Ahem…

Given that there were no “disowning statements” by the real-real-real McCoy (a.k.a. Dr. E) regarding the previous posts for several days now, I have to admit only one possibility: that they were written by Dr. E himself. So I now turn to talking to him again.

Dear Elliot,

You seem to have misunderstood my tolerance limits. I was willing to give it a try and understand...

view entire post

Ahem…

Given that there were no “disowning statements” by the real-real-real McCoy (a.k.a. Dr. E) regarding the previous posts for several days now, I have to admit only one possibility: that they were written by Dr. E himself. So I now turn to talking to him again.

Dear Elliot,

You seem to have misunderstood my tolerance limits. I was willing to give it a try and understand your ideas about space and time, but I thought we had agreed on some rules. Instead, you violated those rules, posting again in a self-unrestrained manner, repeating yourself for the umpteenth time, quoting the quotations you have posted time and again, to the point of inanity. Very well, as you wish, Elliot. However, do you remember the dictum “The customer is always right?” In this case, the customer is I, wanting to “buy” your views. I really wanted it. If you don’t want to sell, suit yourself, or rather, from now on speak only to yourself. It’s not my fault if you’re a bad seller--indeed, the worst I’ve ever seen.

Focusing for the last time on physics, here is what I see: I asked you how relativity follows from your MDT, and what did I get as an answer? “Consider a 4D universe in which the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions: dx4/dt = ic. Ergo Einstein's Relativity.” You repeated this non-sequitur (“Ergo Einstein's Relativity”) four times. Well, sorry to inform you, but from what you’ve shown in your essay so far, Einstein’s relativity most definitely does NOT follow from your dx4/dt=ic. What follows from that relation is something like x4=ict+C, where C is some constant that depends on initial conditions. But that’s NOT relativity. Special relativity follows partially from s=ct, which weaves space and time into one inseparable whole, not from x4=ict, which keeps s (three dimensional space) separable from t, thus implying a Galilean geometry for 3-d space + 1-d time--an absolute, Newtonian time, mind you. You’ve misunderstood the role of x4=ict in Einstein’s 1912 paper. I would advise you to take another look at that paper and try to understand it better, had you not convinced me by now that you can’t understand anything deeply, and you’re prone to misinterpret everything--even my intention to understand you. You’ll misinterpret that, too, lumping me into the mass of your supposed “prosecutors”, who supposedly want to quiet your voice.

No Elliot, I really wanted to understand you, but you don’t seem to be able to help your case. I asked you to show me how relativity follows from your only assumption, and instead of that you asked me to find it out by myself: “Read my paper and Einstein's 1912 Manuscipt[sic] of Relativity and you will see that it really is that simple”, you wrote. This, Elliot, is as if you want to sell some miracle toaster, which you advertise as loud as you can, and when the customer comes and asks you to explain how your wonder toaster works, you tell him “Go and figure that out by yourself, you idiot! And buy my toaster now!” Well, I guess I’d be a true idiot if I bought your toaster under such circumstances.

In any case, my conclusion is you can’t understand many things. Most important, you can’t understand what the people who want to converse with you are asking from you. Keep talking then, but this time only to yourself. (I don’t know if you noticed, but for the past several days you’ve been talking only to me and none else.)

Bye-bye blog,

Kyle

view post as summary

reply to this thread