Essay Abstract

Modern science recognizes three major theories as useful in describing our physical reality. Each useful within definable limits, but each also containing unrealistic elements that indicate their current descriptions are either incomplete or that reality itself may well not be realistic in terms of a common sense reality based on Euclidean Space and Absolute Time. Classical Theory using Newtonian Mechanics although still useful in general application is not expected to produce a complete solution for physics, one reason being that Special Relativity the requirement of Absolute Time in Classical Physics not to be valid. General Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics are the remaining theories from which a more complete Physics explaining reality is expected to be found. During the search for that explanation with one of these two incompatible theories, I believe science has established principles and observations sufficient to demonstrate the rejection of Absolute Time as premature. Reevaluating excepted facts of current physics can establish a Local Absolute Time, including a locally preferred frame of reference. And from that foundation, a universal Absolute Time should be a realistic expectation of reality. The case for both these versions of Absolute Time is made here.

Author Bio

A registered Professional Engineer now retired (Electronics & Communication Systems) focused on Independent Private Research in applying a realistic rational approach to the problems of Physics and Reality to find solutions that could indicate reality is in fact realistic within the bounds of an version of Absolute Time and Space that also respects the Einstein view of a Local Reality.

Download Essay PDF File

post approved

Dear Dr./Mr. Floit:

Thank you for your article reconsidering absolute time. I agree with you about the merits of a concept such as absolute time.

If I may make a suggestion, I think that you might be able to make your point about simultaneity more clearly, if you were to use space-time diagrams. That way, you could represent events as seen in each reference frame, while plotting the other frames in the diagram of the chosen frame (using diagonal axes).

Also, there is a theory that recognizes a “preferred frame” (rest frame), often called the Lorentz-Poincaré Ether theory, which uses the same mathematics as Special Relativity and agrees with all observations to date. If you are interested, more information can be had on the Wikipedia web site, at:

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

Also, I discuss this theory and give further references, in my essay, at:

http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Sasaki._TDoT.pdf


Thanks again, for the essay.

Take care,

Ken.

post approved

I understand the sentence, "Distances are always whore numbers" is a typo. But it does make sense because both physics and pimping are not easy.

You try and resolve the twin paradox without acceleration. What about the principle of equivalence?

post approved

Dear Randall,

the lete posting made me see your essay so late. It has made a fresh approach to theme of this competition by projecting the idea of Absolute Time under locality restriction.

May i pose some queries as below:-

1. Why there are different values being associated with the CMB frequency?

2.Graviton being unobserved thus far, what will be the consequences if the speed of gravittaional interaction is found to 'c' or even greater or less than 'c'?

3. How can one measure the mass density prevalent at the instant of Big bang or 1/2 billion years later compared to the current value? Rates of local Absolute Times depend on such considerations!

4. What will be the consequence for the mass/energy equivalence , including the possibility of higher value for 'c' in early universe to the value measured presently?

i must say it was refreshing to go through your presentation of new conceptual framework which has the right logic. Best wishes for your freelance approach to modern physics!

post approved

Great work, Randall B!!!!

post approved