Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theory Underlying SR: The Time Dimension is Moving Relative to The Spatial Dimension

  1. Jun 28, 2005 #1
    The Theory of Moving Dimensions
    Dr. Elliot McGucken
    mcgucken@jollyroger.com
    In this paper I propose that the time dimension is moving relative to
    the three spatial dimensions. Such a concept may be used to explain
    physical phenomena encountered in relativity and quantum mechanics,
    while offering a path for the unification of Quantum Mechanics and
    Relativity.

    Simply put, it is not possible to rotate an object into the time
    dimension without that object gaining a velocity. Thus the time
    dimension itself must be expanding relative to the three spatial
    dimensions. Another way of looking at this is asking, "Why does
    something always move when it is rotated out of the three spatial
    dimensions and into the time dimension?" If someone can conduct a
    Lorentz transformation on a ruler, and rotate it into the time
    dimension without it moving through the three spatial dimensions, I
    would very much like to hear about it.

    Einstein's two postulates of relativity state:

    I. The laws of physical phenomena are the same in all inertial frames.
    II. The velocity of light in free space is a universal constant,
    independendent of any relative motion of teh source and teh observer.

    I propose that the two postulates may be expressed in an alternative
    manner, by stating the following law of moving dimensions:

    I. The time dimension is moving relative to the three spatial
    dimensions.

    This can be shown illustrated in several ways: Consider an expression
    for the space-time interval of zero length, or of the null vector,
    which traces a photon's path through space-time:

    x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=0
    or
    x^2+y^2+z^2=c^2t^2

    Which for one spatial dimension becomes
    x^2=c^2t^2

    or x=ct

    by taking the derivative of both sides with respect to t, we get

    dx/dt = d/dt (ct) = c

    so

    dx/dt = c

    And hence the time rate of change of the spatial dimension relative to
    the time rate of change of the time dimension is equal to the velocity
    of light.

    ct| /
    | /
    | /
    | /
    | /
    |/_______________
    x

    Also, if we trace the path of a photon on a space-time diagram, the
    only way for a photon to remain stationary in space time is to move at
    the speed of light, or to keep up with the expanding time dimension.
    The null vector, which represents a vector of zero length in
    space-time, can only imply zero movement through space-time. Even
    though a photon moves through space at a velocity equal to C, it stays
    stationary in space-time. Is it not strange at first that in order to
    remain stationary in space time, a photon appears move at the speed of
    light through space? This is only because the time dimension itself is
    moving relative to space.

    Einstein proclaimed that all objects travel through space-time at c.
    Even though we perceive a ruler along the x axis to be stationary, it
    is yet traveling through space-time at the fixed speed of c, implying
    that time is moving through it. Rotate it towards the y axis, and its
    projection upon the x axis shortens, yet it still appears to be
    stationary, and it is still traveling through space-time at the rate
    of c. Rotate it into the time dimension, and it's projection along
    the x axis still shortens, but now it begins to move through the three
    spatial dimensions, while maintaining the fixed speed of c through
    space-time. Again, we see it move through the three spatial
    dimensions as it is rotated into the time dimension because the time
    dimension is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions.

    As Brian Greene points out in the Appendix to Chapter 2 of The Elegant
    Universe, we note that from the space-time position 4-vector
    x=(ct,x1,x2,x3), we can create the velocity 4-vector u=dx/d(tau),
    where tau is the proper time defined by
    d(tau)^2=dt^2-c^-2(dx1^2+dx2^2+dx3^2). Then the "speed through
    space-time" is the magnitude of the 4-vector u,
    ((c^2dt^2-dx^2)/(dt^2-c^-2dx^2))^(1/2), which is identically the speed
    of light c. Now, we can rearrange the equation
    c^2(dt/d(tau))^2-(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2 to be c^2(d(tau)/dt))^2
    +(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2. This shows that an increase of an object's speed
    through space, (dx/d(tau))^2)^(1/2)= dx/d(tau) must be accompanied by
    a decrease in d(tau)/dt which is the object's speed through time,
    which also may be considered the rate at which time elapses on it's
    own clock d(tau) or the proper time, as compared with that on our
    stationary clock dt.

    As an object moves through space, it is rotated into the time
    dimension, and less wave fronts of time are allowed to pass through it
    relative to a stationary object, which bears the full brunt of wave
    fronts. Thus a moving clock will run slower, as all clocks are based
    on the probabilistic emission and propagation of photons, and as a
    moving clock catches up with the expanding wavefront of time, the
    chance that a photon will be emitted without being reabsorbed is
    diminished.
    Thus it is shown that the spatial and temporal dimensions are moving
    relative to one-another. The laws and equations of relativity and
    quantum mechanics rest upon this fundamental nature of physical
    reality.

    Relativistic and quantum mechanical phenomena can be accounted for by
    the underlying nature of the relatively moving dimensions. Time
    dialation, relativistic length contraction, and the equivalence of
    mass and energy can all be seen to derive from this concept of moving
    dimensions. The statistical wave nature of matter and energy also
    rests upon the relative motion of the underlying dimensions.

    As one rotates into the time dimension, one becomes more orthogonal to
    the spatial dimensions, and thus one's length contracts. And too, as
    the time dimension is moving relative to the spatial dimensions, one
    begins to move.

    Wave-particle duality and quantum mechanical probabilistic behavior
    can be accounted for by the relative motion between the dimensions, in
    which both particles and waves exist. Feynman's many-paths integrals,
    reflecting the notion that a particle travels all paths, can be
    accounted for by the fact that until it interacts with other matter in
    the three spatial dimensions, there is a probability that a particle
    or photon may exist as a pure wave, rotated into the fourth dimension,
    moving along with expanding time, independent of the spatial
    dimensions. So it is that radiowaves may pass through walls, carrying
    energy and thus mass.

    The second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy) can be accounted
    for with the fact that all particles and matter have a chance of
    existing in a dimension expanding at a constant rate, equally in all
    dimensions, relative to the rest. The spherical symmetry of a photon's
    wavefront may be viewed as the result of matter having been rotated
    into the time dimension--the matter has become orthogonal to the
    spatial dimensions, and it is now expanding along with time, equally
    in all directions.

    Einstein's second postulate, stating that the velocity of light is a
    universal constant, holds to be true because the velocity of light is
    merely the rate of propagation of a dimension relative to the other
    dimensions. Although this relative rate of propagations between
    dimensions may vary, we shall always interpret it as a constant,
    because we are used to measuring the velocity of the propagation of
    energy relative to the velocity of the propagation of energy, which we
    write as c.

    Relativistic time dialation occurs because as an object approaches the
    speed of light, the object approaches the speed of the propagation of
    energy. As time is measured with regards to the propagation of energy,
    such as the emission of a photon (in an electrical circuit or a
    mechanical spring) or or the occurence of a random event which
    liberates energy, less time will pass for an entity which is
    propagating at a rate which is close to the propagation of energy
    itself. As an entity gains velocity, it is roated into the moving time
    dimension, and it in a sense it catches up with the dimension.

    Relativistic length contraction is always accompanied by an increase
    in velocity, as the probability that each quantum of the object
    resides in the time dimension is increased. Relativistic length
    contraction can be accounted for by the fact that as an object gains
    velocity its probabilistic wave function, or its essence, is rotated
    into the time dimension, and thus it appears shorter from the
    persepective of the three spatial dimensions. At the speed of light
    the object would have to be a photon, so as to be completely absent
    from the spatial dimension, as any presence or probability that a
    particle is in the spatial dimnsion means that there is a probability
    that the time dimension will expand without carrying it along, in
    essence leaving it behind for that moment it exists in the spatial
    dimension.

    Any material entity gains more energy as its velocity increases, and
    relativity demonstrates that the entity also gains more mass. When
    energy is added to an entity, it may also appears as mass, as that
    energy has a finite chance of interacting with the spatial dimensions.

    All matter has a spatial component, or a probability of interacting
    with space, whereas a photon only interacts with that which is in the
    time dimension.

    In order to cause an entity to move, quanta of energy must be added to
    it, and the entity will thus gain a new probabilities for existing in
    the space and time dimensions, as its overall wavefunction, including
    its mass and energy, is rotated out of the spatial dimension and into
    the time dimension. This rotation into the time dimension will be
    proportional to the amount of energy that has been added.

    As only photons can exist purely in the spatial dimension, no entities
    but for photons can ever reach the speed of light, as all matter has a
    finite chance of existing purely in the spatial dimension. This
    property gives rise to the concept of mass, as to exist in the spatial
    dimension curves the fabric of space-time about the existence.

    An entity moves through space-time according to its probability of
    existing in space and time. The more energy a given entity has, the
    more likely it is to exist in the time dimension, or be moving along
    in the dimension which is expanding relative to the spatial
    dimensions. Hence its greater velocity, and also its augmented chance
    of interacting with matter over a fixed distance. This increased
    chance of interacting with matter over a given distance can be
    associated with a shorter deBroglie wavelength or a higher frequency.
    A more energetic photon has a higher frequency, as it is composed of
    more substance, and more momenergy must pass a given point at any
    given time. A less energetic photon carries less momenergy, and thus
    there is a smaller chance of it interacting with matter as it passes
    on by. A more energetic photon has a higher probability of interacting
    with matter as it passes it by, as its shorter wavelngth and higher
    frequency represent a greater, more persistant existence in
    space-time.

    A photon has no spatial dimensions, as it is matter rotated into the
    time dimension. Einstein's famous equation which expresses the
    equivalnce between matter and energy:

    E=mc^2

    holds true because radiative energy, consisting of photons, is merely
    matter which has been rotaed tinto the expanding time dimension.

    In quantum mechanics energy is accounted for by the operator which
    represents the infinitesimal change with respect to time, while
    momentum is accounted for by an operator which represents the
    infinitesimal change with respect to space. Both momentum and energy
    are defined with the concept of change and probability. And too,
    inherent in all waves are the concepts of motion and probability.

    Einstein's postulates derive from the fact that in all inertial
    reference frames, the relative motions between the dimensions is fixed
    at a constant rate, because the relative motion between the dimensions
    is measured relative to the relative motion. Thus the laws of physics,
    and all physical concepts, which are all fundamentally based on the
    concept of motion or change with respect to time, are also fixed in
    all interial frames, and the speed of light is constant in all
    inertail frames.

    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.

    The underlying fabric of all reality, the dimensions themselves, are
    moving relative to one another.

    I'm treating this as an open-source physics project, if anyone would
    like to join me at http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=16
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 29, 2005 #2

    krab

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Seriously? The time rate of change of time? That's dt/dt, which is 1.
     
  4. Jun 30, 2005 #3
    I believe the OP is suggesting that "time" is different in different dimensions, which is why his equation is different than yours.
    But I'm not sure if this can be proven.
     
  5. Jul 1, 2005 #4
    I saw that this guy spammed Slashdot with his theory.
     
  6. Jul 1, 2005 #5

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, I've read it, and I can't find anything that explains just what it means for one dimension to be moving relative to another. (Of course, I'm not surprised)


    My best guess is that he's applying a projection from Minowski 4-space onto Euclidean 3-space, and then observing how a velocity 4-vector gets projected onto a spatial 3-vector.


    I wonder if the OP realizes that, in a given inertial reference frame, that stationary objects have velocity vectors that are parallel to the time axis, and that the trajectory of any object spans the entire interval of time from its creation until its annihilation.
     
  7. Jul 1, 2005 #6
    Yes, the trajectory does span the entire time interval from creation to annilation.

    But then time stops when something moves the speed of light.

    When something moves at the speed of light, it does not travel through time, but only through space.

    When something moves the speed of light, it has caught up with the moving time dimension.

    A photon, for instance, moves at the speed of light because it is momenergy that is rotated fully into the time dimension, orthogonal to the spatial dimensions.

    A photon, no matter how far it moves through space, has not moved through space-time. That is why its path is defined as the zero-length null vector.

    This is due to the fact that the time dimension is moving relative to the spatial dimensions.

    A stationary object moves through the time dimension at the velocity of c.

    A photon, which travels through space at the velocity of c, is stationary in the time dimension.

    The only way to explain this is that the space and time dimensions are moving relative to one-another.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2005
  8. Jul 1, 2005 #7
    no object can travel at c so its pointless to discuss what happens to it if it reaches c it can never happen which is why we can't say that time stops for an object moving at c.
    personally i don't understand how dimensions can move relatively to each other saying something exists in an n dimensional space simply means it takes n variables to define its exact position.
     
  9. Jul 1, 2005 #8

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is an entirely meaningless statement until you explain what it means for dimensions to be moving relative to one another.

    (Incidentally, I can't seem to find a definition of "momenergy" either)



    Proper time does not increase along the trajectory of something moving at the speed of light. However, in any inertial reference frame, coordinate time does increase.


    It's just as correct to say the proper distance along the photon's trajectory is zero as it is to say the proper time difference is zero.


    What can it possibly mean to "catch up with a dimension"?


    In any reference frame, the momentum 4-vector is parallel to the time axis if and only if the object is stationary. The momentum 4-vector of an object travelling at the speed of light is neither parallel to the time axis, nor the spatial hyperplane.


    Sure it has, as evidenced by the fact that the points along the photon's trajectory are different points. You are confused by the fact that ds and dτ aren't really metrics.

    In particular, the properties they fail to have are:

    Their evaluation along any path is nonnegative.
    If the evaluation along a path is zero, then the path consists of a single point.

    You're trying to use this second property, but ds and dτ simply don't have that property.


    No, it does not. That should be clear from the very definition of velocity -- the ratio of the spatial displacement to the temporal displacement is c. In particular, that means if the spatial displacement between two events is x, then the temporal displacement between those events is x / c, which is clearly nonzero.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2005
  10. Jul 2, 2005 #9
    mcGucken: Your idea should not be simply dismissed so lightly. It is a novel and simple attempt to explain an empirical fact that arises when trying to measure the speed of light. However, others are not satisfied with your unfinished attempt to articulate and clarify your idea. This idea is not new by the way, however, it would become the unique property of the first person(s) to present a complete and coherent exposition of it which was as practical as Special Relativity in accounting for current facts and predicting new ones, as well as giving an eloquent description that has less conceptual problems and paradoxes than Special Relativity.

    The idea of 'dimensions' moving relative to one another is not as ludicrous as it seems, since in General Relativity space-time itself has a structure and substance to it that is not mere mathematical apparatus. In effect, GR is not a truly relativistic theory in the Machian sense, but is as 'absolute space'-heavy as Newtonian Gravity. Einstein failed to carry out Mach's agenda of a purely relative account of motion and force, and instead actually made things worse by giving the gravitational field a reality previously unknown, allowing it to store energy/mass.

    I mention this because if space-time itself has a reality and a 'position', or can act as an anchor or means to establish a kind of absolute positional frame, there may be merit in considering only one or two dimensions as having a 'substance' too, which implies detectable effects and scientific tests. This would be an 'aether'-like effect.

    My problem with your exposition is that it is not simpler than SR yet. You are using terms and ideas borrowed from SR, like Minkowski Space-time, and the perception of time and its relation to velocity, yet have not clarified how your theory would use or define these ideas differently, and this disturbs those who have clear definitions of the concepts based upon SR.

    For instance, one approach might be to study SR long and hard enough to have mastered its concepts and flaws, thus putting yourself in a position to provide an intelligent critique of SR first, to lay the ground for your new theory and its concepts. In particular, you should make the overlap and differences between the native concepts and definitions of each theory clear. (And spell out the advantages and trade-offs of each theory too.)

    Right now, it appears to others that you are using concepts that are borrowed from SR but not properly understood, since they haven't the same meaning for you.

    A good example is the concept of T versus t, and you should perhaps put together some short thought-experiments to show why your interpretation of time(s) is less paradoxical than SR.

    One significant problem I think you are facing is that you are accepting certain mathematical constructs and ideas uncritically, such as Minkowski Spacetime (MS). Why should we use this mathematical apparatus, and why not just stick with SR if we do so? How can your account of causes and effects make better use of MS? Personally, I think Minkowski Spacetime has played out its usefulness, but still makes a good bumwipe. So why saddle yourself with mathematical structures that have probably had their day? Why treat TIME as a dimension at all? It may look cute on a paper graph or drawing, but do we really have any business pretending that time is anything like space? Sometimes mathematicians can be real idiots.

    An example of the trouble that mathematical apparatus can cause is the ad-hoc patchwork way in which direction itself is handled in Cartesian-like coordinates: We indicate the direction of a simple line-trajectory by both (x,y,z) coordinates and -/+ signs for each orthogonal dimension. This is pure poppycock, and a clumsy kluge. In the real world there is no special direction that suddenly causes a number to change from positive to negative. It's just an artifact of our coordinate system. Why should a 1 degree clockwise change result in a number becoming negative in one place, while there is no effect if you are in a different orientation?

    Now lets look at the physical case: If we do treat Time as an orthogonal dimension or axis normal to the other dimensions, it becomes an independant variable. As well, it is as directionless as any spacial dimension. While this might appeal to those who believe that physical laws are time-symmetrical, such a choice clearly has hidden philosophical assumptions built into it.

    And now, in your basic theory, suppose the Time Axis is moving. What does this mean? It must mean that as you say, a stationary object in 3-space is moving at the speed of light in the Time dimension. It has become another spacial dimension, but with a special property. The problem is from a dimensional point of view, Time (the actual coordinate numbers) could be moving in one of TWO directions, i.e., positively, or negatively. Moving backward in time should allow one to increase the apparent speed of light. Forward would allow you to catch up to 'Time', and experience Einstein's thought experiment of seeing a 'stationary' electromagnetic wave... But what happens? Does the magnetic field vanish? Is there a 'sweet spot' in your 'speed'?

    The basic problem is that if you want to be moving at the speed of light on the time axis in ALL directions, you have to assume the Time Dimension has a special kind of motion, non-directional, or rather all-directional. The only thing that describes this case in my view would be EXPANSION. That is, the Time Dimension would have to be Dilating or Expanding at the speed of Light. In this case, its 'hooks' would always move away at a fixed rate, regardless of other dimensions. This would be something like Einstein's idea of the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. (inertial and gravitational mass).
     
  11. Jul 2, 2005 #10

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Then maybe you can explain to me what it means for a dimension to be moving relative to another.

    The phrase appears no less absurd in GR than it does in SR -- the dimension of a topological space is, more or less, simply the number of degrees of freedom. In either case, there is nothing that we can isolate and say "This is the first dimension", "This is the second dimension", and so forth.

    There are things I can imagine phrases like "This is the first dimension" might mean -- maybe he's selecting a coordinate chart and talking about one of the axes, or maybe the function that maps points to their first coordinate, or maybe a decomposition of the topological space into a product of four things. But I don't see how any of these lend themselves to the notion of a dimension moving relative to another one.


    (I'd respond to the rest of your post, RP, but I don't want to hijack the original poster's thread)
     
  12. Jul 2, 2005 #11
    Dear Rogue Physicist,

    You say that my ideas are not original. I have been searching for similar ideas for ten years on the internet, and have not found them. Could you please direct me to some similar ideas? Thanks!

    You say, "The basic problem is that if you want to be moving at the speed of light on the time axis in ALL directions, you have to assume the Time Dimension has a special kind of motion, non-directional, or rather all-directional. The only thing that describes this case in my view would be EXPANSION. That is, the Time Dimension would have to be Dilating or Expanding at the speed of Light. In this case, its 'hooks' would always move away at a fixed rate, regardless of other dimensions. This would be something like Einstein's idea of the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. (inertial and gravitational mass)."

    I have said many times that the time dimension appears as a spherically symmetric expanding wavefront throughout the three spatial dimensions. A photon, which represents a spherically expanding wavefront, is momenergy rotated fully into time, orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions.

    A photon's energy is E=hf. h represents the distance momenergy can be rotated into the time dimension. If you are trying to rotate more momenrgy into the time dimension, the frequency will be higher, representing the fact that you will have more fundamental units of momenergy passing a given point p. So it is that the total momenergy of a photon is E=hf.

    h | | |
    P
    Low energy photon.


    h |||||||||||||||||||||||||
    P
    High energy photon.

    The time dimensiuon expands in incremental units of h in all directions equally.

    Think Huygen's Principle: as a photon expands, every point of its expanding wavefront expands as a spherically symmetric wavefront. NOTHING EVER ENTERS THE TIME DIMENSION DEEPER THAN h!!!

    The expanding time dimension is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions, but it's only ever h deep!!!

    Whenever a photon interacts with matter, it is brought out of the expanding time dimension, and localized in the spatial dimensions. Thus a massless photon, when caught by an electorn in an atom, ads mass to the atom.

    I quote myself:

    "The second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy) can be accounted
    for with the fact that all particles and matter have a chance of
    existing in a dimension expanding at a constant rate, equally in all
    dimensions, relative to the rest. The spherical symmetry of a photon's
    wavefront may be viewed as the result of matter having been rotated
    into the time dimension--the matter has become orthogonal to the
    spatial dimensions, and it is now expanding along with time, equally
    in all directions."
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  13. Jul 2, 2005 #12
    http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=19

    Outline of Dr. E's Upcoming Paper
    Rest Energy:

    Where does an object’s rest energy come from? It comes from fact that the expanding time dimension is moving, giving a stationary object a velocity of c through space-time, even when the object appears at rest on a lab table. This massive velocity relative to time, when translated into the spatial dimensions via a Lorentz rotation of the velocity 4-vector, is manifested in energy. E=mc^2.



    The Photon’s Null Vector:

    How can we be comfortable that an entity of zero length moves at the speed of light? The only way for this to make sense is if the time dimension is moving relative to the spatial dimension. A null vector in space-time is defined by a photon, which moves at the velocity of light through space-time. So it is that to have zero length in space-time, an entity must translate through the three spatial dimensions at the velocity of light. This notion of maintaining zero interval by a velocity equal to c suggests that one of the coordinates, specifically the time coordinate, is moving at a velocity c relative to the three spatial coordinates.





    The Notion of Standing Still in Space and Time:

    The only way to remain stationary in space is to move through time with a velocity of c. The only way to remain stationary in time is to move through space with a velocity of c.

    Thus the time and space dimensions must be moving relative to one another.



    Einstein proclaimed that all objects travel through space-time at c. Even though we perceive a ruler along the x axis to be stationary, it is yet traveling through space-time at the fixed speed of c, implying that time is moving through it. Rotate it towards the y axis, and its projection upon the x axis shortens, yet it still appears to be stationary, and it is still traveling through space-time at the rate of c. Rotate it into the time dimension, and it's projection along the x axis still shortens (Lorentz contraction), but now it begins to move through the three spatial dimensions, while maintaining the fixed speed of c through space-time. Again, we see it move through the three spatial dimensions as it is rotated into the time dimension because the time dimension is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions.



    As Brian Greene points out in the Appendix to Chapter 2 of The Elegant Universe, we note that from the space-time position 4-vector x=(ct,x1,x2,x3), we can create the velocity 4-vector u=dx/d(tau), where tau is the proper time defined by d(tau)^2=dt^2-c^-2(dx1^2+dx2^2+dx3^2). Then the "speed through space-time" is the magnitude of the 4-vector u, ((c^2dt^2-dx^2)/(dt^2-c^-2dx^2))^(1/2), which is identically the speed of light c. Now, we can rearrange the equation c^2(dt/d(tau))^2-(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2 to be c^2(d(tau)/dt))^2+(dx/d(tau))^2=c^2. This shows that an increase of an object's speed through space, (dx/d(tau))^2)^(1/2)= dx/d(tau) must be accompanied by a decrease in d(tau)/dt which is the object's speed through time, which also may be considered the rate at which time elapses on it's own clock d(tau) or the proper time, as compared with that on our stationary clock dt.





    Conservation of Momemtum & Energy = Conservation of Momenergy



    Red Shift



    More Curvature = Slower Time:



    Energy’s Mass:

    Energy has mass because energy is mass rotated fully into the moving time dimension. Energy has zero rest mass, as mass represents the component of an object that exists in the spatial dimensions, through which time can expand.



    Time Dilation:

    Clocks slow down as they approach the speed of light, because they catch up with the expanding time dimension. All clocks measure time based on the emission of photons. The faster a clock travels, the less chance there is for it to emit a photon, as the photon will be reabsorbed.



    Constancy of c in all frames:

    The measurement of time is always measured with some mechanism that is based on the propagation of photons, whether it be photons in a clock spring or photons in a quartz crystal. Hence, when we measure the speed of light in a frame, we are always measuring it relative to a mechanism based on the speed of light in that frame. Hence the velocity of light is always viewed as a constant in all frames.





    Length Contraction:

    Picture four dimensions—three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. An object can be rotated so that its projection along any particular axis decreases. When an object is rotated into time, its projection along the x, y, and z directions decreases. This is known as relativistic length contraction. Relativistic length contraction is *always* accompanied by time dilation and an increase in the object's velocity. Because rotating an object along the time dimension always results in the object gaining a velocity relative to the spatial dimensions, one can conclude that the time dimension must be moving.



    Spherical Symmetry of Photon Propagation:

    Quantum mechanics teaches us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric wavefront. This is because a photon is mass rotated into the time dimension, which is expanding as a spherically-symmetric wavefront.



    Spherical Symmetry of Time Expansion through Three Dimensions:

    The projection of a sphere in two dimensions is a circle. The projection of the fourth dimension in three dimensions is a sphere. And because this fourth dimension, time, is expanding, it appears as an expanding sphere. For a photon to stay stationary in time, it moves through space with a velocity of c. Think about that—the photon stays stationary in time, while moving at a velocity of c relative to the three spatial diemensions. It expands as a spherically symmetrical wavefront by staying stationary in time. Therefore, time must be expanding in a spherically symmetric manner throughout space.



    Rest Mass Is Invariant

    Rest mass represents an entity that exists fully in space. It is invariant.



    Increase of System Mass:

    As an object accelerates through space-time, the mass of the system increases as energy is added. The rest mass remains invariant, but it is pulled along through space-time by interacting with photons, which in turn no longer travel the speed of light. When photons interact with matter, matter accelerates, while photons slow down.



    Entropy:

    Because time is expanding as a spherically symmetric wavefront through the three spatial dimensions, photons, as well as all matter that interacts with photons, exhibits a probability to move in a spherically symmetric manner. Thus, if we have a clump of atoms in the middles of a room, a probability exists for the atoms to spread apart in a spherically symmetrical manner. at each point in space, they exhibit a probabilty of moving along any of the three spatial coordinates, carried along by the expanding time dimension.



    The – c2t2 in the space-time metric

    The four dimensions of space-time are divided into three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. In the space-time metric, where ds is an invariant expressed as\ ds^2=x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2, the minus sign and c^2 distinguishes the t coordinate from the three spatial coordinates. Why the minus sign exists is most often glossed over—it is considered to just “be” there, because it is there.



    That the time dimension is different somehow from the three spatial dimensions is obvious. This difference is a result of the time dimension moving relative to the spatial dimensions.



    Planck’s constant



    Fundamental Wave Nature

    The fundamental wave nature of all matter is based upon the fundamental wave nature of space-time.



    Wave-Particle Duality

    Wave particle duality is a result of measurements of objects interacting upon a canvas of space and time dimensions that are moving relative to one another. Wave behavior, or interference, results when two photons interfere in the time dimension as it propagates through space. Particle behavior results when a photon interacts with an electron, when it is taken out of the moving time dimension and localized in the static spatial dimensions, being caught by the electron.



    Philosophical and Physical Barriers to Moving Dimensions

    Many trained physicists have a knee-jerk reaction that the time dimension cannot be moving because “dimensions cannot move.” First off, since the universe is expanding, space-time is also expanding, demonstrating that dimensions are moving and expanding. Secondly, general relativity demonstrates that massive objects warp space-time, meaning that as a massive object moves though space-time, it stretches space-time, showing again that space-time in one area can move, or deform, relative to space-time in another area. Thus there exist neither philosophical nor physical barriers to the concept of moving dimensions, but for artificial ones within lazy minds.



    Rather than just accepting the minus sign in front of the c^2t^2 as being there because it “just is there,” this paper aims to look at the deeper reality which gives rise to the minus sign. A physicist’s job is not to accept things on blind faith, nor only ask questions that are allowed to be asked, but a physicist’s job is to wonder. And that wonder, which seems all but forgotten in the bureaucratization of modern physics, leads to the deeper beauty. “Imagination is more important than knowledge,” was how one physicist put it.



    Increasing Energy Increases Momentum



    Conservation of Dimension



    Gravity



    Red Shift



    The Increase of Mass With Velocity

    http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=19
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  14. Jul 2, 2005 #13
    Philosophical and Physical Barriers to Moving Dimensions

    Dear Hurkyl,

    You write:

    Check this out--here's my explanation:

    Philosophical and Physical Barriers to Moving Dimensions

    Many trained physicists have a knee-jerk reaction that the time dimension cannot be moving because “dimensions cannot move.” First off, since the universe is expanding, space-time is also expanding, demonstrating that dimensions are moving and expanding. Secondly, general relativity demonstrates that massive objects warp space-time, meaning that as a massive object moves though space-time, it stretches space-time, showing again that space-time in one area can move, or deform, relative to space-time in another area. Thus there exist neither philosophical nor physical barriers to the concept of moving dimensions, but for artificial ones within lazy minds.
     
  15. Jul 2, 2005 #14
    John Archibald Wheeler

    Dear Hurkyl,

    You write:


    Perhaps you've heard of John Archibald Wheeler who named the Black Hole, helped Bohr determine that U235 would fission, and wrote several texts on GR, including the famous GRAVITATION.

    Momenergy is his term--google it.

    I'm quite suprised that a physicist discussing space-time has never read Wheeler.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wheeler+momenergy&btnG=Google+Search

    I recommend you start with his undergraduate primer on space-time:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_5/102-7680628-5660909?v=glance&s=books

    And then procede to his more advanced texts:

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/s...r=Wheeler, John Archibald/102-7680628-5660909
     
  16. Jul 2, 2005 #15
    Of course 'dimension' has just the meaning you have given it. But I think what a theory such as this is suggesting is more like the idea of a 'field'. In the case of fields we can talk about and isolate dimensions in which they have significant contours, rates and values, and dimensions in which they don't. One can then imagine groups of one or two dimensions containing the 'field'.

    Now if the 'field' changes in a way that could be projected as the whole field moving with respect to other spacial dimensions, or inertial frames in spacetime, we now have something like the concept of a hidden, 'moving dimension'. The terminology may be more like Star Trek than 20th century physics, but that doesn't matter.

    Nothing is more important for the progress of science is to encourage those with ideas and energy to pursue them to follow through and do so. It doesn't matter what educational level they have achieved at the moment they cross our path, or whether they have mastered such and such a theory. What matters is not how far along the road they happen to be, but what direction they are facing and whether or not they are moving.
    A teaser to be sure: Just remember you can never really know how much others know about any given subject. Life is full of surprises.
     
  17. Jul 2, 2005 #16
    What Seems Strange To Me......

    What seems strange to me is the millions upon millions of dollars String Theorists get for their postmodern hoax/mythologies which are giving physics & physicisists a bad name. They fabricate 10, 12, 17, n+1 dimensions, Brian Greene gets a PBS entertainment contract to rehash Einstein's greatest hits with cool videos and hip animations, while physicists build vast bureaucracies where befuddled conformity is valued over logic, reason, and physics.

    It is so obvious that the time dimension is moving relative to the spatial dimensions that I almost can't stand it anymore.

    I've been putting out teasers here and there, while keeping the majority of the paper to myself. I first want to ascertain that my ideas are utterly, wholey, and completely rejected by the physics establishment, and that nobody anywhere has thought of this, before I submit the paper to one of the antiquated, irrelevant journals that have Einstein spinning in his grave.

    I want to give all the experts their chance to take their best shot at Moving Dimensions Theory, to rail against the logic and reason with all their might, to rage against the simplicity with the convoluted prejudices and arrogance that pervades so much of physics and academia these days.

    If anyone knows of any other theories that incorporate "Moving Dimensions," or the time dimension expanding as a spherically-symmertic wavefront, please let me know!!!

    http://physicsmathforums.com/
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  18. Jul 2, 2005 #17
    Photons travel at c!!!

    How can you say no object travels at c!!!

    A photon is an object!!

    It carries mass and energy!!!

    It is responsible for the "solar wind!"

    It will carry this information that I type to your computer!!

    So a photon is an object!!

    As much as anything else.

    It has no rest mass because it is rotated completely into the time dimension.

    E=mc^2 shows that when rotated into the time dimension, mass takes on properties of energy. This is because the time dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  19. Jul 2, 2005 #18
    How dare you so pompously and condescendingly question the Theory of Moving Dimensions when you have never even read John Archibald Wheeler's freshman treatment of momenergy?

    Do you have a degree in physics? Where did you get it from? What physics texts have you used as sources? Where did you learn SR from? What the hell does this mean. "My best guess is that he's applying a projection from Minowski 4-space onto Euclidean 3-space, and then observing how a velocity 4-vector gets projected onto a spatial 3-vector?" How dare you attempt to put words in my mouth!! That is not what I'm doing at all!! Read what I wrote and read it in the context of Wheeler & Einstein: http://physicsmathforums.com !! Back to the basics before you jump into the mumbo-jumbo of muddled thinking!!

    Can you explain that sentence to me? I have no idea what it means.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  20. Jul 2, 2005 #19
    Dr E
    Seems like you have more than enough outlined items to publish a book with, why just a paper? Maybe you can compete with McCutcheon’s “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy” advertised on your Forum pages as well as these here.
    Although not well received by Physics Pro’s, it did made “Best Seller” (Amazon Sci anyway). I suspect with a bit of tweaking you could do much better, and provide a big boost to you Forum Pages. It takes a Critical Mass of users and supporters to get a forum going well like this forum we are in now. This Forum does well thanks in large part to good management by the support guys here, even if some may seem “pompously or condescending” to you.

    Allow me to suggest a “tweak” that would really send your book to the top. Look through the details of your theory to find where you can devise an experiment or enhance an existing experiment to look at results never looked at our seen before. AND predict those results via your theory that cannot be shown by current science. Something you cannot test yourself but experimenters would be able to confirm your ideas with.

    Einstein was able to move the location of a star with the gravity of the sun, if you can use your ideas in that same way to prove or demonstrate something none of use would have ever thought of with current ideas and tools, then you’ll have something truly powerful. If you have some ideas on that line it'd be great to give us a couple hints. But it’s probably not wise to detail the full experimental demonstration until you have the book ready to publish. Marketing and promotion would appreciate good timing and coordination on stuff like that I’m sure.

    Keep us advised.
    Randall B
     
  21. Jul 2, 2005 #20
    Thanks Randall,

    Great ideas.

    I already have several experiments devised that support Moving Dimensions Theory, but I have been keeping them a secret.

    The scientific world is often quick to steal/appropriate those very same ideas they crucified only yesterday, so I am trying to ascertain that the scientific world does indeed wholly and completely reject the Theory of Moving Dimensions--the simple proposition that the time dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

    But experiments aside, what confounds me is the vehement oppostion to logic and reason from some of the posters. Now I understand detractors and disagreement--that is natural, but why the unbated agression which relies on prejudices and trifles as opposed to physics?

    When you witness the tones of some of the posters, that trumps their logic and reason, you get the sense that they believe they are God Almighty themselves, creating a universe in their image.

    When did physics turn the corner from gentle language and solid logic and reason to screams of indignation and wild accusations directed at those who merely think?

    I post to various boards to see if anyone can convince me of faulty logic and reasoning, so that I might explain my self better in future books and and papers.

    Most of the time I am content to let them go off on their random diatribes, erecting their own straw men in place of my theory and tearing them down, but now I'm pushing back just a little, to see if there's anything at all behind their bloated bluster and pompous condescension.

    The world of physics is due for a sea change:

    http://physicsmathforums.com
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Theory Underlying SR: The Time Dimension is Moving Relative to The Spatial Dimension
  1. Time as a Dimension (Replies: 3)

  2. Time as a dimension (Replies: 29)

Loading...