Godel's Block Universe Paradox Resolved, MDT's Unification of QM and Relativity

[astro]

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/09dd153303769410/c545ed2c247202ab?hl=en#c545ed2c247202ab

http://physicsmathforums.com/
Godel's Block Universe Paradox Resolved
In 1949 Godel published a paper showing that within the theory of
relativity, time as we understand it, does not exist. Einstein
recognized Godel's paper as "an important contribution to the general
theory of relativity," and since then physicists have not been able to
find any logical shortcomings in Godel's work, and nobody has been able
to account for the existence of time. But the Theory of Moving
Dimensions accounts for time as we know it by showing that it is an
emergent property of the underlying dimension's intrinsic relative
movement.


Godel wrote, "By making a round trip on a rocket ship in a sufficiently
wide course, it is possible in these worlds to travel into any region
of the past, present, and future, and back again, exactly as it is
possible in other worlds to travel to distant parts of space. This
state of affairs seems to imply an absurdity. For it enables one to
travel into the near past of those places where he himself lived. There
he would find a person who would be himself at some earlier period of
life. Now he could do something to this person, which, by his memory,
he knows has not happened to him."


Kaku writes, "Kurt Godel's essay constitutes, in my opinion, an
important contribution to the general theory of relativity, especially
to the analysis of the concept of time. The problem here involved
disturbed me already at the time of the building up of the general
theory of relativity, without my having succeeded in clarifying it...
The distinction "earlier-later" is abandoned for world-points which lie
far apart in a cosmological sense, and those paradoxes, regarding the
direction of the causal connection, arise, of which Mr. Godel has
spoken. . . It will be interesting to weigh whether these are not to be
excluded on physical grounds." -Michio Kaku


The mistake Einstein made in his formulation was confusing time itself
with the fourth dimension. Time is an emergent property that we witness
because of the fourth dimension expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions, and because it thus inherits properties of a dimension, it
is all too tempting for physicists to refer to time as a dimension.


Time travel is impossible both in reality and Moving Dimensions theory,
though I encourage prominent physicists to keep on writing books about
time machines and bookstores to stock them in the science-fiction
sections.


Time arises from the interaction of the expanding fourth dimension with
the three spatial dimensions, but many physicists mistakenly labeled
the fourth dimension as the time dimension.


A lot of confusion has arisen by from this mislabeling coupled with the
physicists' tendency to over-extend metaphors. As soon as physicists
mistakenly labeled the fourth dimension the time dimension, they were
eager to see it as an entity analogous to the three spatial dimensions,
where one can get from any point to any other point.


But time is an emergent property deriving from the expansion of a
single spatial dimension relative to the three other stationary spatial
dimensions. The fourth dimension expands in units of the Planck length
at the rate of c, so in a sense the fourth dimension is only ever
Planck's length deep to all macroscopic objects. Only a photon can
exist in this dimension, orthogonal to the three dimensions, and at
that point a photon is matter surfing the expanding dimension. Huygen's
principle demonstrates that every point along a spherically symmetric
wavefront is the source of a spherically symmetric wave, and so it is
with a photon. This is because every point in space-time is the source
of a spherically symmetric expansion of the fourth dimension relative
to the three stationary dimensions.


Time travel to any significant degree is impossible because the time
dimension never reaches deeper than Planck's length. You could only go
back in time by Planck's time, which wouldn't be very useful!


Physicists enjoy viewing the time dimension on equal footing with the
spatial dimensions. After all, they say it is just another a
"dimension" that just happens to have a minus sign infront of it in the
space-time metric. But they never seek to explain the minus sign.
Instead they rush straight ahead into all their ridiculous notions of
time travel, stating that just as we can get from any point A to any
point B in space, we can get from any point A to any point B in time.
But time travel has never been accomplished, nor will it ever be.


Physicists were right in recognizing that time is a dimension, but they
fell short in recognizing that it was different from the three spatial
dimensions in that it is expanding at the rate of c relative to the
three spatial dimensions.


The notion of past, present, and future is more related to the change
of energy than it is to the actual existence of a physical past, a
physical present, and a physical future. Only the present ever exists,
and the past is what is recorded in our minds-it exists nowhere else.


But because time is a dimension, physicists were seduced into believing
one could travel anywhere within it. But in reality we never get any
further than Planck's length deep in time, and it is at that depth
that photons surf through the universe, while electrons oscillate, and
out bodies maintain their average position firmly in the three spatial
dimensions as the time dimension expands relentlessly about us in units
of Planck's length.


"For Godel, if there is time travel, there isn't time. The goal of the
great logician was not to make room in physics for one's favorite
episode of Star Trek, but rather to demonstrate that if one follows the
logic of relativity further even than its father was willing to
venture, the results will not just illuminate but eliminate the reality
of time." -A World Without Time, Palle Yourgrau


Unification of QM and Relativity
Relativity becomes increasingly exact at long-length scales but fails
at short ones because space-time itself is quantized, as the time
dimension is expanding in units of the Planck length. The concept of
general relativity's smooth geometry, at large scales, disappears on
short-distance scales-this has been a problem to string theorists, but
only because they were never bold enough to recognize that's the way it
is because that's the way it is-GR does not break down at distances
smaller than the Planck length because such distances do not exist with
any degree of certainty. The fourth dimension is expanding relative to
the three spatial dimensions in units of the Planck length, and thus
distances smaller than the Planck length cannot be measured nor
defined.


In An Elegant Universe, Brian Greene writes, "Recall that the problem
in merging general relativity and quantum mechanics turns up when the
central tenet of the former-that space and time constitute a smoothly
curving geometrical structure-confronts the essential feature of the
latter-that everything in the universe, including the fabric of space
and time, undergoes quantum fluctuations that become increasingly
turbulent when probed on smaller and smaller distance scales. On
sub-Planck-scale distances, the quantum undulations are so violent that
they destroy the notion of a smoothly curving geometrical space; this
means that general relativity breaks down."


But general relativity does not break down. It works perfectly well,
holding the planets in their orbits, curving space and time about
massive objects, bending light just so, in accordance with Einstein's
equations.


General relativity does not break down at sub-Planck-scale distances
because such distances do not exist. The fourth dimension is expanding
relative to the three spatial dimensions in units of the Planck length,
and thus all physical measurements and physical definitions are larger
than the Planck length. General relativity need have no fear of ever
breaking down at distances smaller than the Planck length, because such
distances do not exist in the physical world!!


http://physicsmathforums.com/

[Epsilon=One]

the Theory of Moving Dimensions accounts for time as we know it by showing that it is an emergent property of the underlying dimension's intrinsic relative movement.There is much to Moving Dimensions Theory that adds interesting, alternative concepts to the ill-defined postulates of the standard models and conventional theories of physics regarding fundamental time. MDT has many aspects of FIT intuitively correct; though, without much detail as to what exactly creates "time."

Much of the difficulty with understanding “time” comes from the above phrase “as we now it.” What we know is many different things that have only the concept of something measured by some kind of "clock" in common.

MDT is correct in using the terms “moving,” “emergent,” “intrinsic,” and “relative” in referring to the most fundamental concept of time. It is an understanding of this fundamental time that is most difficult.

This fundamental concept is most difficult to understand because few persons understand what it is “intrinsic” to, what is "moving"; where it is “emergent” from, why “relative” differentiates it from common time.

"Intrinsic" and "emergent" is not what time is usually thought to be. And, fundamental time is not relative, which is what time is usually considered to be. Thus, much confusion.

Fundamental time will be referred to as fundamental, intrinsic time (FIT).

I will not delve into the paradoxes and confusions as noted in the prior thread. Each, in one way or another, is a form of confusion arising from ill-defined or neglected concepts as generally noted above.

The concept of time should be defined as that which is measured by a “clock.” (The word “clock” is marked with quotes to indicate that it does not always mean what many think the word connotes.) There are many forms of “clocks”; and, for each form of clock, there is a distinct type of “time.”

Thus, to define “time,” the “clock” that measures a particular “time” must be defined. “Clocks” have power sources, escapements, and “units.”

To define FIT requires establishing what it is intrinsic to and the details of its “clock.”

Once there is an understanding of: 1.) the fundamental geometry of the internal structure of Light; 2.) how the fundamental unit of time is derived from that geometry; and, 3.) that all forces must act directly, not “at-a-distance” the “clock” that measures FIT is easy to understand.

Gödel confused the relativity of conventional time with the constant of FIT.

Einstein confused the speed of light as an absolute rather than the "unit" of FIT.

[Albers]

I am calling for a revision of our understanding of vacuum fluctuations.

[Epsilon=One]

I am calling for a revision of our understanding of vacuum fluctuations.Good luck. I agree with the necessity of your quest. The revision should start with the geometry of the fluctuations and an understanding of why the geometry is mandated. From this geometry, intrinsically, arise all the physical characteristics of the environment.

This geometry is ellipsoidal; and, it is the consequent intrinsic resonance of the complex oscillations of slide, swing, and vibration that establish the spherical "spins" that behave as observed fermion and boson phenomena. (Compression of the proto-atom of these pulsing spheroids provides much of the gravitational and Cosmic inertial (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=139) effect.)

You might find some inspiration from Mario’s recent paper (http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0601/0601218.pdf)

[Albers]

Thank you! You are speaking with a thirty-year experienced piano tuner and rebuilder. One might hope that a well-prepared hammer would make two or three strings vibrate cleanly up and down, together. One is dreaming, and thank heavens for the tone we do produce! There is always a tendency for energy to couple into a sideways mode, more or less. This does not accomplish the job of thin wires pumping a large soundboard diaphragm, not more than 3/8 inch thick. . . . . . . . . . .I have not yet dealt with an ellipsoidal field but see no reason why I could not in theory. I simply have assumed equal falloff in three dimensions. I have already processed a scenario of distinct longitudinal and transverse scales, and that is simply bookkeeping.

[Albers]

You are saying marvelous things. How so ellipsoidal? This I can see in plane polarization, as the electric plane is distinct from the magnetic, but I have looked at circularly pol. form. The rest of your paragraph astounds me. I don't know what you are saying but I think I am close. I have gone thru electrodynamics to the point of the expression of four photon modes; two transverse, and the related scalar and longitudinal. All I know is that I got 'em.

[Epsilon=One]

You are saying marvelous things.Thank you for your kind words. Very few with your education would be so courageous.

I have read all your work that I can find. I am very impressed.

Your questions tell me much; please don't stop.

I will answer them in as much detail as possible throughout the next day or so. Your probing is the only way that we can have an impact.

Presently, my computer time is quite limited.

[RAJOD]

Nice post Astro. It sounds good, any others agree with it?

Time being a change of energy state is easier to grasp than as a dimension.

When one goes away in a space ship the clocks in the ship slow down relative to ours. But the people in the ship will not notice anything strange, they will not see this change. It will only become apparent when they return to earth and everything has changed. This is a time machine to the future but one that is more akin to being frozen for 10 years then waking up.

Does traveling near the speed of light slow down all matter within the ship?

You can think of it as TIME slowing down but really it may be everything slows down within the ship.

A person looking out the ships window might see a planet zip by and think that they are not moving and the planet was moving very fast.

So why then do the people age slower vs the people on the planet? The only real reference point is space itself. Is it that things moving at a greater speed relative to space age slower?

I know that they never found the "Either" that was the medium for light, but I am thinking of space as a fabric, one that is not a void. Maybe it is a type of medium with properties yet to be deduced. If it is nothing then how does gravity interact with it?


Does this make any sense to you?

Maybe you could try to clear this up for me. thanks!

[Epsilon=One]

Nice post Astro. It sounds good, any others agree with it?I do not agree with Astro's post. It is ludicrous.

You should carefully read the posts that follow.

You cannot define time until you define the "clock" that creates the time that you are examining. There are all sorts of time; however, all of them are ultimately derived from fundamental, intrinsic time (www.101123.com/FIT) (FIT).

Time being a change of energy state is easier to grasp than as a dimension.Time "being a change of energy state" is not quite correct. Time is merely the counting of units generated by a particular "clock." It is the "escapement" of the "clock" that accounts for the "change of energy"; though, I prefer the change being more directional than a "change of energy state."

Time is definitely a dimension as its description is a requirement for determining location.

Time definitely is neither a continuum nor something to be equated with space as Einstein fantasized with his concept of "space-time." Don't forget that when Einstein theorized relativity, he not only was unaware of "Universal" expansion; but, he was not aware of the acceleration of galactic recession. Thus, the equations of relativity are at best clumsy descriptions of Reality/Nature.

When one goes away in a space ship the clocks in the ship slow down relative to ours. But the people in the ship will not notice anything strange, they will not see this change. It will only become apparent when they return to earth and everything has changed. This is a time machine to the future but one that is more akin to being frozen for 10 years then waking up.It is difficult to understand how pomo, theoretical physicists can reach such a conclusion concerning space travel when not one of them has ever been able to adequately define time . . . or space. In fact there is nothing in academic, Standard Model, theoretical physics (aSMtp) that is other than wild, irreconcilable conjecture . . . that is aSMtp is entirely a conglomeration of metaphysical concepts that are poorly stitched together.

Does traveling near the speed of light slow down all matter within the ship?Interesting question when you consider that the speed of light cannot be constant at such a low speed as is accepted by aSMtp. Remember, aSMtp has never adequately defined Light as other that a paradoxical, metaphysical phenomenon.

You can think of it as TIME slowing down but really it may be everything slows down within the ship.Nuts!

A person looking out the ships window might see a planet zip by and think that they are not moving and the planet was moving very fast.Your point is . . . ?

So why then do the people age slower vs the people on the planet? The only real reference point is space itself. Is it that things moving at a greater speed relative to space age slower?You cannot draw logical conclusions based upon premises that contain an absence of definitions and philosophical logic.

I know that they never found the "Either" that was the medium for light, but I am thinking of space as a fabric, one that is not a void.You are making a mistake quite similar to that of Einstein. However, in Einstein’s day he did not have the research that is available to you today. Space is quanticized . . . as is everything that exists,

Maybe it is a type of medium with properties yet to be deduced. If it is nothing then how does gravity interact with it?The “properties” have been “deduced” since 1955. No one seems to have the competence to understand.

Does this make any sense to you?Concerning your, and Astro's, logic . . . not much sense at all.

Maybe you could try to clear this up for me.If I haven't, which I probably haven't, keep asking questions; such as: Why?; Why?; and, Why? again.

Also, good advice for Astro.

[RAJOD]

Well you managed to not answer my questions.

Explain how the fabric has been deduced in 1955? I don't know how they could have done that when Dark Energy had not been thought of.

Einstein did know that the universe was expanding. Hubble was the one that convinced him. That is why he made the gravitational constant, after finding out the universe was not static he said "it was my biggest blunder"
Now they think that the dark energy is driving the expansion.

You do know that Einsteins theories still hold true. Look up how GPS got messed up on the first sat. launch. The engineers apparently did not believe the effects of gravity would have much effect on the clocks. Well they were wrong, now they have to adjust for relativity effects, if not the gps gets all out of wack.

Things do change near the speed of light, this has been confirmed using cyclotrons. Particles actually increase in mass as they are speed up to near light speed. I do not know if they have check but the decay of them would probably slow down too.

My point on relative speeds was from each observers view the other could be thought of moving near the speed of light. I was wanting the explanation of why time slows on the ship. If there were no reference points how would you even know the ship was moving? Ie. Remove all the stars planets etc. Its moving relative to what now? The only think I could think of was its still moving through spacetime. Which means that something in this space would have to be stationary relative to the ship. What exactly is space?

I was hoping someone in physics could explain this better.

Thanks

[Epsilon=One]

Well you managed to not answer my questions.Sorry. I can’t find a question that I didn’t answer. Which specific question are you referring to?

Explain how the fabric has been deduced in 1955? I don't know how they could have done that when Dark Energy had not been thought of.Dark Energy (www.101123.com/DE) (DE) has been thought of.

In the spring of 1955, the Pulsoid (www.101123.com/P) was deduced from the concept of Seminal Motion (www.101123.com/Sm) (SM), which is the source of the mystical; “Dark Energy.”

Einstein did know that the universe was expanding. Hubble was the one that convinced him.Hubble was unaware of such expansion when Einstein conceived General Relativity (GR). Later, Einstein added the Cosmological Constant, which was a valiant effort at a “correcting” factor. However, Einstein soon, mistakenly, referred to it as the greatest mistake he had made. He was correct in that a “correcting” factor was required. Einstein’s mistake was three-fold: the required force was not a constant; and, he sourced the Cosmological Constant from the wrong place; and, in the wrong direction.

Now they think that the dark energy is driving the expansion.“They” are correct. However, aSMTP, cannot find, nor define, Dark Matter, much less “Dark Energy’ (DE).

You do know that Einsteins theories still hold true.Einstein’s theories never were true. No one understood this better than Einstein. He was still trying to reconcile them the evening before his death. I was on my way to see him the next morning when I heard the news on the car radio of his death.

Look up how GPS got messed up on the first sat. launch. The engineers apparently did not believe the effects of gravity would have much effect on the clocks. Well they were wrong, now they have to adjust for relativity effects, if not the gps gets all out of wack.JPL Uses nothing but Newtonian theory/equations. There is nothing that we launch that requires GR; as, nothing we launch ever goes fast enough to require GR. You should study the Pioneer Anomaly (www.CQthus.com/PA), which clearly demonstrates the effects of Pulsoid Theory (www.101123.com/PTis) and indicates the failure of both GR and Newtonian gravitational theory.

Things do change near the speed of light, this has been confirmed using cyclotrons. Particles actually increase in mass as they are speed up to near light speed. I do not know if they have check but the decay of them would probably slow down too.The changes are more closely identified with hyper-relativistic speeds. Remember, no one has ever been able to reconcile with observation or philosophical logic either SUSY or quantum chromodynamics with GR . . . or, Special Relativity (SR).

My point on relative speeds was from each observers view the other could be thought of moving near the speed of light. I was wanting the explanation of why time slows on the ship. If there were no reference points how would you even know the ship was moving? Ie. Remove all the stars planets etc. Its moving relative to what now? The only think I could think of was its still moving through spacetime. Which means that something in this space would have to be stationary relative to the ship. What exactly is space?I thought that I clearly answered your query. The answer is that space is quanticized well below are ability to observe and at speeds of oscillation/pulsing (vibration, slide, and swing) that are hyper-relativistic. Of course, aSMtp, cannot accept this as Einstein has “hung them up” on the fallacy that the speed of Light is a constant. A ludicrous conclusion that defies all observation and logic.

I was hoping someone in physics could explain this better.Certainly, no one from aSMtp can. Since the death of Einstein theoretical physics theory has become an embarrassment to the principles of IPSO (www.101123.com/IPSO)

[phyti]

Astro:
The mistake Einstein made in his formulation was confusing time itself with the fourth dimension.

Hermann Minkowski merged time and space into spacetime, not Albert.

Physicists enjoy viewing the time dimension on equal footing with the
spatial dimensions. After all, they say it is just another a
"dimension" that just happens to have a minus sign infront of it in the
space-time metric. But they never seek to explain the minus sign.

The invariant interval was an equality between the spatial interval and the product of the time interval scaled by c. The time interval was treated as a complex variable for mathematical purposes to produce a symmetrical equation in 4 variables. The equation still only has 3 independent variables, because c is constant.

Rajod:
Time is not a thing, it's a relationship, just like a spatial measurement. Length is expressed in terms of a unit of measure, i.e. a number. For time you are measuring activity (events) using a standard rate of activity (clock).
A clock has to produce a uniform periodic event, equivalent to uniformly spaced markings on a ruler. The precision of the uniformity depends on the purpose, from the sun for daily social activities, to atomic vibrations for scientific experiments. Once you record the times, you have an ordered sequence of events for historical study or prediction purposes.
For example, an event lasted 30 clock min. (duration), or, the event happened 10 clock yr. after some reference event (timeline).
The physical aspect of time involves the nature of the transfer of energy between the basic particles of matter via light photons (em radiation). Light has been experimentally verified to propagate through space (vacuum) at a constant speed 'c', which is independent of the motion of its source. If a space probe moving at speed v, emits a light signal in the direction of motion, the signal moves from that position in space at c, not c+v, i.e., the light does not aquire the speed of the emitting object.
Imagine watching 2 objects 1 ls (light second) apart exchanging signals. While still, the round trip transit time is 2 seconds. As they start moving, the transit time starts to increase. The light will not speed up, it will just take longer overall. Since all objects are composed of basic particles, the slowing of processes is common to all things. The curious result of this phenomena is, observers moving with the objects will slow down to the same degree and not be aware it, while anyone else will see it.
To clarify, time does not slow down, i.e., the same number of events in the universe happens for all observers. Their clocks just slice time into different intervals, depending on their motion.

[leebingate]

Thank you! You are speaking with a thirty-year experienced piano tuner and rebuilder. One might hope that a well-prepared hammer would make two or three strings vibrate cleanly up and down, together. One is dreaming, and thank heavens for the tone we do produce! There is always a tendency for energy to couple into a sideways mode, more or less. This does not accomplish the job of thin wires pumping a large soundboard diaphragm, not more than 3/8 inch thick. . . . . . . . . . .I have not yet dealt with an ellipsoidal field but see no reason why I could not in theory. I simply have assumed equal falloff in three dimensions. I have already processed a scenario of distinct longitudinal and transverse scales, and that is simply bookkeeping.
You are saying marvelous things. How so ellipsoidal? This I can see in plane polarization, as the electric plane is distinct from the magnetic, but I have looked at circularly pol. form. The rest of your paragraph astounds me. I don't know what you are saying but I think I am close. I have gone thru electrodynamics to the point of the expression of four photon modes; two transverse, and the related scalar and longitudinal. All I know is that I got 'em.