[Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time (of Relativity)

Sat Oct 22 21:46:39 CEST 2016

Dear Mr. van Leunen,

Thank you for your very well written and thought out email/essay on the modern concept of time from the point of view of physics.  I would be exaggerating to say I understood 25% of what you wrote but it certainly gives me a flavor of modern thinking on the subject.  I have archived your email so that I can refer to it later. 

I am an inventor/physicists graduate from a good engineering school in physics in 1965; now retired.  I was involved in technical fields throughout my career and have filled a file drawer of mostly unpublished work I have done on my own physics theories and inventions.  As an inventor I am very prolific and have 18 patents issued or being processed.  I am interested in what you said because I am currently writing a book on the dimensions of time and space. 

I have two skills that I rate myself above all others: I have a high imagination that I can control and direct towards any subject; and I have the ability to see the “big picture” on any subject.  Sadly, my math skills only include calculus and the practical math fields of an undergraduate physics student. 

I often think and write about physics.  What I see is that physics has slowly degenerated into mathematics.  This passage into mathematics accelerated just after WWII until today physicists speak in a language I don’t understand.  I have to use Wikipedia to look up every noun. 

Physics consist of a three-part process: observation, modeling, and mathematics.  Observation has developed unbelievable powerful instruments for investigating both the small and large phenomena since WWII.  Likewise mathematical descriptions have advanced into very abstract realms.  But physics modeling has made little advancement. 

The book I am writing develops models of time and space; it contains very little mathematics.   Physics models are developed from observations.  Mathematics translates these models into algorithms that can then be used to create further understanding of the models and to use them to design practical engineering devices. 

The weakness of current physics is in the modeling.  Very sophisticated mathematics is being used to describe very weak models of reality. 

As has been admitted by many others, mathematics by its very nature cannot discover anything new, it can only give new insights on existing knowledge.  For example, I have seen a clear video made of a UFO within full view of the camera, warp out of our 4-dimensional space.  Using modern physics theories, how was it done?  Our models need to be expanded to allow for explanations of that type of activity.  For a second example, there is hardly a person alive that has not experienced or witnessed metaphysical events, yet physics models ignore their existence.   

(My belief here is that scientists should recognize the existence of metaphysical realities but draw a sharp line between them and physics; or risk creating a body of knowledge in which nothing can be predicted with certainty.) 

I hope you have enjoyed my ramblings and perhaps given you some food for thought. 

---Maurice Daniel---
Inventor/Physicist

Maurice Daniel, Master Inventor
mdaniel at masterinventor.com

On Oct 22, 2016, at 6:12 AM, Hans van Leunen wrote:

> Dear Mr Serret,
>  
> First the notion of time itself must be cleared. Contemporary physics applies two notions of time: coordinate time and proper time. Coordinate time is our common notion of time, but that choice causes a spacetime structure with a Minkowski signature. This selection must be separated from the fact that nature does not allow speeds faster than the speed of information transfer. That subject is treated by Lorentz transforms.    
> So what is it that you want to discuss, the concept of time or the results of Lorentz transforms?
> The treatise of the concept of time goes to the foundation of reality. The Lorentz transform is a pure mathematical concept.
>  
> It is possible to create a mathematical model of reality that can be formulated in a few lines. The mathematical model applies a Euclidean signature of the space-progression structure.
> Progression corresponds to the proper time concept.
> 
> The model starts with its foundation, which is taken to be an orthomodular lattice (the discoverers of this lattice called it “quantum logic”). 
> The set of closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space forms a realization of this lattice. 
> 
> The elements of an orthonormal base of this Hilbert space represent the atoms of the lattice. 
> 
> Hilbert spaces can only cope with division rings. These are number systems of which every non-zero element owns a unique inverse. I choose the quaternions as the number system. 
> 
> The rational quaternions can be used to enumerate the members of a selected orthonormal base. A special reference operator can be defined that uses the members of the selected orthonormal base as eigenvectors and the enumerators as the corresponding eigenvalues. 
> 
> The next step involves the definition of a subspace that is spanned by the eigenvectors that belong to eigenvalues that share the same real part. We interpret this real part as progression and the imaginary part as spatial location.
> 
> PROGRESSION IS A REAL NUMBER VALUED SCALAR THAT PLAYS THE ROLE OF PHYSICAL TIME.
> 
> Now let the progression value increase. Consequently, the created subspace scans as a vane over the Hilbert space and divides it in a historic part, a static status quo (the vane), and a future part. 
> 
> All discrete objects in universe appear to be modules or modular systems. Elementary modules exist that are not configured from other modules. 
> 
> In the model, the elementary modules are represented by one-dimensional subspaces and a special operator provides them with a spatial location. That operator uses a stochastic process to generate the location. 
> 
> Thus, the elementary module hops in a hopping path. After a while the landing locations of the hops have formed a (coherent) location swarm. The swarm owns a location density distribution. Both the hopping path and the location swarm represent the elementary module. The location density distribution corresponds to the squared modulus of the wave function of the elementary module.
> 
> The modules are interpreted as observers. The observers travel with the vane. With these ingredients, the model offers two different views. One is the creator’s view. The other view is the observer’s view. 
> 
> The creator can view the model independent of the value of progression.
> In the creator’s view the observers follow a zigzag life path that at some instants reflect against the vane, where observers can interpret the incident as a pair creation or as a pair annihilation.
> 
> This simple model throws a different light on how the universe can be structured. The model is more extensively treated in “The Hilbert Book Test Model”; http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021
> 
> In order to comprehend the model, you must comprehend lattice theory, Hilbert spaces and number systems.
>  
> Sincerely yours,
> Hans van Leunen,
> Retired physicist
>  
> Van: Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl] Namens O. Serret
> Verzonden: zaterdag 22 oktober 2016 10:20
> Aan: physics at tuks.nl
> Onderwerp: [Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time (of Relativity)
>  
> Would you be interested to discuss the arguments about the variable time of Relativity ?
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161022/07dfbb5e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Maurice Photo, Small Size.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 17131 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161022/07dfbb5e/attachment.jpg>