Theory of Temporal Relativity

[Qfwfq]

Sit back'n'watch... Popcorn anyone?

[EWright]

Your quote is good. I like your notion, but you forget somethings.

 

Mass is energy, Energy is Electromagnetic, is Light. As EM fields accelerate they deform. Mass does likewise, so a body of mass that is accelerating contracts along the x-axis (the direction of motion). As a body of mass approaches c it's x-axis distance contracts by a factor of [math]\gamma[/math]. I take this as mass that approaches c is light-like, and more like a wave. Mass that is significantly slower than c is point-like, and therefore more like a particle.

 

K-Klown, Thanks for the point you make regarding my signature. I'd be interested in your views on the full actual article (signature will link you to it).

 

You say "as EM fields accelerate", however, I'm not clear what you mean by this. Electromagnetic fields, or light, are measured to travel at a constant speed and do not slow or accelerate. The reason according to my Theory of Temporal Relativity is that light is measured at this speed because that is the rate at which time arrives (or that the future becomes the present) and thus can not exceed this speed, but will always travel at it. (If it were not for this time barrier, I believe light may then travel at infinite speed.) Please let me know what you think of other points in my theory. Part II will address such things as lenght contraction and mass at relative speeds.

[EWright]

I don't get it.

 

I still don't understand how it's possible to have more than one time dimension.

 

edit: Okay, I now understand what you're trying to do. I still don't think you quite understand that it's really just a coincidence that light travels at c It has nothing to do with light that makes it the universal speed limit. That is how fast massless particles travel. Therefore they should travel that fast no matter how fast YOU are going. That is the big "AH-HA!" that leads to all the weird relativity stuff.

 

That's the big "AH-HA" with no explanation as to WHY light travels at c relative to yourself no matter how fast you are going. That should not be good enough. Einstein made it a postulate, meaning that if you assume that light travels at a constant speed, then the rest of SR falls into place, which it does. But WHY is it that if you could travel .8c you would still measure light as traveling at c? It's because light that is the rate at which time is arriving (see post before this one, as I make this point there). And time arrives at this rate no matter what speed you are going. However, UNITS of measurable time (seconds, minutes, years, etc) are variable within this framework of of this constant universal-time.

 

You are introducing another term into the equation. Basically, everyone knows and accepts that light travels at c and that relativity works. I don't see much of a reason to add another element. (Photons travel at c] because that is the speed at which absolute time unfolds) especially when the CMB objection is addressed by inflationary theory, and the whole "one universe age" thing is addressed by the Weyl Postulate and comoving distance.

 

I agree, light will be measured to travel at c and relativity does work absolutely precisely as a means of measurment, prediction, etc. I make the point in the article that I do not disagree with relativity; I just think the basis for some of it goes a step further. It is not science to say "everyone knows and accepts that..." without asking "why?". Granted inflation can explain some things, but there are also questions surrounding Inflation Theory. There are other ways to explain the CMB, including Brane theory. I do not feel it is correct to say we should stop looking at other possibilities because old or current ones explain it "good enough".

 

Furthermore, I don't really see any way to test it. The only way you'd ever find out if there was a universal time frame was if you could somehow go outside it. Now, I'm by no means an expert, so be this received with attendant disclaimers, but that's my take on it.

 

TFS

 

The CMB has already gone outside of our fixed frame for us. It's flatness and uniformity show that from the time this 'first light' was released a constant passage of universal-time has passed from then until now. It is the man-made units of measureable time that are then relative within this framework.

[IDMclean]

Well it's like this:

Mass is Energy. Energy is Electromagnetic.

 

Therefore Mass is like Energy but unbalanced. It is either more Electric or More Magnetic. In my view this is what causes Velocity, I am not sure how yet, but it's the cause I am sure. By the equations and various theories regarding the nature of Mass-energy and Space-time, it is then defined that Mass is made up of Electromagnetic Fields, as is Light, but not in equal purpotions.

 

Therefore, if mass is defined according to EM fields, then it will deform as it approaches c.

[HydrogenBond]

One way to make temporal relativity work is to look at the fundamental building blocks of the universe; protons, electrons and neutrons. These all formed very early and have been sychronized since them. If we take any hydrogen proton on earth, cut it in half and count the rings, it should be the same as protons anywhere in the universe.

[EWright]

One way to make temporal relativity work is to look at the fundamental building blocks of the universe; protons, electrons and neutrons. These all formed very early and have been sychronized since them. If we take any hydrogen proton on earth, cut it in half and count the rings, it should be the same as protons anywhere in the universe.

 

Perhaps I don't understand the physics you are talking about. Isn't a hydrogen atom just one proton orbited by one electron? So I don't follow your logic here. If a hydrogen atom isn't like one you find on earth, then it isn't really a hydrogen atom, is it?

[HydrogenBond]

I was only making a distinction between hydrogen protons and nuclear protons. The hydrogen protons are essentially the same now, in the past and throughout the universe. When they become nuclear protons, they are dependant on when they were fused due to being alterred via mass burn. Neutrons come under the same category as nuclear protons, although some neutrons have been around since the beginning.

 

The universe is synchronized via energy. At the speed of light of energy its reference sees distance contracted to zero and time at a singularity. Within that reference all the particles are overlapped. Where things appear to differ is via the finite time and distance potential expressed by energy. In other words, energy shows finite distance and time expressions (wavelength and frequency) even though at the speed of light these should be singular. This departure from the C-reference defines potential in distance and time. If we add this together we get synchronisty at C, with temporal departure within time and distance potential that is separate from C, defining what appears to be noncoordinated distinct interactions.

 

If we fast forward the universe either into blackholes or absolute zero, the temporal variation within energy will come to an end allowing full coordination at C to be more apparent.

[Erasmus00]

As far as I can tell, what you've done with this theory of temporal relativity is step into one subset of general relativity.

 

The fact that c is the rate at which the "future becomes the past" so to speak is, loosely speaking, true in standard relativity as well as your theory.

 

In a more mathematical (and precise) way, we could say that the magnitude of the four velocity vector is constant. Hence, as the spatial components get larger, the temporal must change to compensate.

 

Now, in your theory you have singled out "cosmic time" as a particularly special time, which amounts to choosing one set of coordinates and calling them "standard." The only problem with this is that there are some areas of space that these coordinates don't cover. Consider that inside the event horizen of a black hole, your coordinates blow up.(i.e. your "cosmic time" cannot extend below the horizen of a black hole) However, other choices of coordinates (kruskal-szekeres for instance) can cover all the way down the singularity.

 

In general relativity, we say that all coordinates are equally valid, so we can set up lots of different coordinate systems. In your version we have simply singled one particular one out as special. Does this make sense?

-Will

[Erasmus00]

Well it's like this:

Mass is Energy. Energy is Electromagnetic.

 

Energy is not always electromagnetic. It can be kinetic, gravitational, related to the strong nuclear force, etc.

-Will

[IDMclean]

Energy is not always electromagnetic. It can be kinetic, gravitational, related to the strong nuclear force, etc.

 

You know how funny that sounds? The photon is defined in terms of Electomagnetics. Energy is defined in terms of the Photon.

 

Gravity, according to what you go by, is either A) A force (mr/t^2) and related to potential energy, or :) A geodesic effect on energy propagating through space-time

 

Strong is like wise a force. Kinetic energy is energy, but it's always in units of the photon. Same for potential energy.

 

Energy is energy. Energy is Electro-Magnetic(not in terms of the force, but in terms of the Fields) in nature.

[EWright]

You know how funny that sounds? The photon is defined in terms of Electomagnetics. Energy is defined in terms of the Photon.

 

Gravity, according to what you go by, is either A) A force (mr/t^2) and related to potential energy, or :) A geodesic effect on energy propagating through space-time

 

Strong is like wise a force. Kinetic energy is energy, but it's always in units of the photon. Same for potential energy.

 

Energy is energy. Energy is Electro-Magnetic(not in terms of the force, but in terms of the Fields) in nature.

 

With all due respect guys, can we please keep the arguments regarding K-Clown's theory to his relevant thread?

[EWright]

As far as I can tell, what you've done with this theory of temporal relativity is step into one subset of general relativity.

[/Quote]

 

Well in that case I'm glad to have hit upon an idea that at least appears valid. I was not aware that it may be more related to GR than SR. Any additional points you have on this will be appreciated, and I'll do my best to address your concerns or challenges, as they relate to my theory.

 

The fact that c is the rate at which the "future becomes the past" so to speak is, loosely speaking, true in standard relativity as well as your theory.

 

In a more mathematical (and precise) way, we could say that the magnitude of the four velocity vector is constant. Hence, as the spatial components get larger, the temporal must change to compensate.

 

Interesting points. I will have to look up and give thought to the "four velocity vector" and its relation to my ideas. I assume when you refer to "the temporal" in your above statement, that you are referring to measurable units of time, as opposed to universal or cosmic time?

 

Can you explain further what you mean by "loosely ... true"?

 

I view the future-time horizon as time unfolding to become the present as opposed to the past. I make the distinction because I feel there may be a sort of "slack" between this constant time arriving and time as we view and measure it. Measureable time then becomes variable the faster it approaches the future-time horizon. This is a concept I am still considering, but have not become fully comfortable with as of yet.

 

Now, in your theory you have singled out "cosmic time" as a particularly special time, which amounts to choosing one set of coordinates and calling them "standard." The only problem with this is that there are some areas of space that these coordinates don't cover. Consider that inside the event horizen of a black hole, your coordinates blow up.(i.e. your "cosmic time" cannot extend below the horizen of a black hole) However, other choices of coordinates (kruskal-szekeres for instance) can cover all the way down the singularity.

 

I'll look up kruskal-szekeres as well, and hope to gain an understanding of how other theories describe the physics within a black hole. I'm assuming kruskal-szekeres breaks down at the singularity like all others as far as I know?

 

My theory does consider the goings-on within a black hole including the singularity itself. However, as with the rest of my theory, it is intuitively based as opposed to mathematical. Some parts will be more speculative than others, but the purpose is to put new food-for-though out there to be considered by those who may be able to apply the necessary physics to the events I describe.

 

In general relativity, we say that all coordinates are equally valid, so we can set up lots of different coordinate systems. In your version we have simply singled one particular one out as special. Does this make sense?

-Will

 

While this one is singled out, all other frames of reference within its context can consider themselves relative to one another with no real speciality, with the possible exception of black holes. For measurements sake, they will all be able to claim the same equal validity as in previous relativity theory. However, in terms of their relation to universal-time, it will depend.

 

I'm specifically curious to know whether you agree that universal or cosmic time (i have to look up cosmic-time to see if it is what I am referring to exactly) is a constant. Given the uniformity of the CMB in every direction, it seems to me that a constant time must have passed for the whole of the universe (though not its subparts) since the origin of the CMB. Or in otherwords, that the known universe has one age, measurable in terms of the CMB, and that it can only be this one age as measured from anywhere in the universe at the current time.

[Qfwfq]

EWright I think you definitely should deepen your grasp of relativity, as so far formulated with 4-vectors and Lorentz covariance, before proposing an alternative. The things you say can be viewed to some degree as a loose way of saying how Minkowski and others have described it in mathematical formalism, in part you are proposing a "manner of speaking" description which is non-standard but perhaps defendable.

 

One might say that you are trying to invent the wheel. Nothing wrong with that, if you choose to do so, but you might be told that you could have much more easily bought one, and of top quality.

 

With all due respect guys, can we please keep the arguments regarding K-Clown's theory to his relevant thread?

Yes, and also without remarks about how funny something sounds (it was a valid objection).

[EWright]

EWright I think you definitely should deepen your grasp of relativity, as so far formulated with 4-vectors and Lorentz covariance, before proposing an alternative. The things you say can be viewed to some degree as a loose way of saying how Minkowski and others have described it in mathematical formalism, in part you are proposing a "manner of speaking" description which is non-standard but perhaps defendable.

 

One might say that you are trying to invent the wheel. Nothing wrong with that, if you choose to do so, but you might be told that you could have much more easily bought one, and of top quality.

 

Yes, and also without remarks about how funny something sounds (it was a valid objection).

 

Thank you Qfwfq, this is definitely a good point, and one I should address.

 

It doesn't surprise me if, as Will has suggested, I've hit upon a subset of other theory, as so far I have not taken it too far off course, I don't think. And with the tested accuracy of relativity theories, anything else that's accurate is bound to be close.

 

At the same time, many in the scientific community believe that in order to find a single theory that merges relativity and quantum theory, that some adjustments will likely have to be made to relativity. I am not proposing a complete theory to merge the two. I am looking considering an area that I believe may allow for minor adjustments to, and understanding of, previous relativity theory; and thus one possible direction for even a minor change to Einstein's views that could help advance our understanding of physics.

 

As I've stated in the past, I am a layperson, not a scientist. Much of my understanding comes from popular scientific publications, and granted I do not have the background to follow the more complicated formulaic versions. As you know, such things as "4-vectors and Lorentz covariance" are not covered as extensively in popular scientific literature, so I look for such direction from those of you here, so that I may follow up on it and attempt to apply it in a meaningful way to my ideas.

 

I would also like to urge those of you with a higher understanding of physics to keep an open mind and to consider what I propose, not as something restated, but as something with potential for advancing ideas. Its likely you'll see the potential for such direction where I may not, due to both your greater understanding of the mathematical application as well as your greater familiarity with current theory. My only concern is that current theory is so engrained in some persons that I feel they won't consider alternative reasoning. So again, I ask that you keep an open mind.

 

Also, I believe this first part of my theory should resemble prior relativity concepts the closest, as it is the basis for what is to come. In my next paper I attempt to explain some phenomena such as "dark matter", "dark energy" and mature galaxies in the young universe. I don't believe current theories describe these phenomena in an established way, so hopefully It won't resemble as close of an idea as current theories. I'll certainly be interested in feedback regarding the application of my theory to these aspects of the cosmos.

 

Click signature below for the paper relating to this discussion.

[Tarantism]

the following is a message i sent to Eric Wright, but his request i am posting it here. i am simply copy/pasting the message, as i do not feel like writing the whole thing. the following is just personal speculation, i am no physicist...so please bear with me...

 

i would first like to compliment your ideas as they coincide greatly with my own ponderings and are interesting regardless. i hope that i can contribute to the structure of this theory as much as i can.

 

 

 

This is a static period before time as we know it sprang into existence, in which all dimensions of time existed equally with no arrow toward the future, but with the potential for such direction.

 

the reason i have chosen this quote is because here is where i believe i can contribute to the ideas first. i havent finished reading your thread so excuse me if i repeat anything that you have already said.

 

in my wonderings i have come to think of this place as the blueprint infinity. blueprint because i belive that it is the relm in which universes are made. infinity because i belive that this is the only palce where you can not only apply limiless time...but also limitless matter and possibilty. first let me provide a little background.

 

a pre-requisate to these thoughts is that i do belive in the multi-verse theory and Infinity is simply an attempt at explaining how they connect...though indirectly.

 

i belive that there are two characteristics that constitute a "universe". one is that it must contain matter (and anti-matter, but i will get back to that later). the other characteristic is that it must have a time...that is, it cannot be stagnant because if a universe is inactive then it cannot exist, it would simply be a space where nothing can progress.

 

so which came first, to matter or the time? in my thoughts i have come to the conclusion that it would have been simultanious. time would have been born because matter was born, and matter would exist because time existed. my attemt to explain this is to assign a kind of physical property to time. as i stated in my post, i see time as a kind of "hollow matter" of sorts...that is exerting no mass or energy and still existing. i call this a "timepiece".

 

another unique quality of the timepiece is that it is self-reproducing and only requires an inital piece to exist.

 

 

in my wonderings i have come to think of this place as the blueprint infinity.

 

 

the place i believe that the timepieces are made is the BI, or Blueprint Infinity. i see this place as a completely flat plane, where the only thing that can be made is initial sparks of energy that spawns two things: a time and an anti-time and they are being made at random, each spawning a new universe with undetermined sets of physical laws. my picture of this universe would be that of a double-tornado, following the idea of balloon expansion, with one balloon consisting of time (both linear and timepeice), and one cosisting of the opposite of these, so anti-matter, etc. these two "balloons" would be "connected" through the initail energy that sparked the time and matter.

 

 

initial spark creating balloon-matter universes
                              
                              XXXX <--expanding matter 
                               XXX
-------infinity plane----O----------------------
                               YYY
                              YYYY <---Expanding anti-matter  

where the "O" is the inital energy.                             

[edit: the "O" is meant to line up with the "X" and "Y" sides of the universe.[/edit]

 

this inital expansion is what we call the big bang, the beginning of this universe. what the blueprint infinity aspect alters is that in this theory the singularity is no longer a singularity, but rather one in an infinate number of universes sparking on the plane of blueprint infinity.

 

i can expand a bit more on the initial energy if this makes any sense. im really just looking for the opinions of someone who has a greater understanding of these things, though this is mostly theoretical and deals with things that science has not begun to yet try to explain...as it deals with what could exist in a kind of "plain of purgatory", where universes exist parallell to each other...and all around each other for that matter.

 

one specific thing that i have not yet understood is weather or not the gravity in the universe is staying the same or if the gravity in our universe is getting stronger? if it is getting stronger, than two possibilities apply as to the fate of our own universe. one is that the two halves of the universe would switch, that is the matter would swith place with the anti matter. another option is that they would collide, spelling the end of our universe. the final option is that gravity is not getting stronger and therefore will not halt the expansion of this universe and it will keep going on, infinatey.

 

thanks for your time. if this doesnt make sense please let me know, im off to read the temporal relativity thread.

 

-Josh