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

[Hans van Leunen]

Mike,
I am a sloppy physicist and a not so good mathematician, but good enough to comprehend a simple foundation that features restricted extensions and I was capable of generating a mathematical replica of that structure. I applied the trustworthiness of some very capable scientists and compared to them my contribution is minimal. So if you want to criticize the Hilbert Book Test Model then you must first deny their papers.
Sincerely yours,
Hans
----Origineel Bericht----
Van : mike at mlawrence.co.uk
Datum : 22/10/2016 18:53
Aan : physics at tuks.nl
Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Arguments for or against the	variable	time	(of	Relativity)
 Hans, 
   
 Thanks, I will have a look at your link. There are two issues which your response prompts me to mention further for now. 
 Firstly, my 'chains then loops' idea works for any big bang. Ours happens to have been successful. The failed big bangs occur when an unmerging event forms chains then loops and an inflation that produces small radius (large mass) loops. The difference between formations size (at Planck energy) and the final size does not provide enough energy to overcome the gravity of the large mass loops.The result is the collapse of that big bang and the formation of a black hole. So I say that the universe is infinitely old and our inflation/expansion is littered with black holes from previous failed big bangs embedded in the background whilst our expanion proceeds through the background. So we should see 'obviously' conjoined galaxies and black holes (at the same distance rom us) with very different red shifts. It is a mix of a sort of Steady State and big bang universe. 
  Secondly, how do your quarterionic numbers fit in the loops that do not have three pairs? Our fermions are three-pair loops, but all non-three pair loops make up dark matter. Such loops are of different rotational symmetry to our three-loops, so cannot form stacks, like bosons and photons, with our normal matter,but will form with their own symmetry loops. However, the lowest loop size that forms chemistry (atoms with nuclei and orbiting maximum charge loops) is our threefold symmetry. So we do not see dark matter atoms, except maybe a few at five-fold symmetry, but we would not be able to identify them as such, other than due to their different charge, because the 'mass' and spin of all loops is independent of the number of pairs in the loops, only their physical rotational radius. An example would be changing an electron into a muon, which involves changing the loop size of the same three pairs from larger to smaller radius.
 Cheers 
 Mike 
   
 On Oct 22 2016, Hans van Leunen wrote: 
 Mike,
 The Hilbert Book Test Model uses the fact that quaternionic number systems
 exist in several versions that differ in the way that they are ordered. The
 can be ordered by Cartesian coordinate systems and they can be ordered by
 polar coordinate systems and each can be done in different ways. A single
 quaternionic Hilbert space can harbor several of these versions in parallel
 as eigenspaces of what I call reference operators and they can play the role
 of parameter spaces that are used by quaternionic functions. On their turn
 the target values of these functions can be used for the definition of new
 categories of operators. In this way Hilbert space operator technology can
 be merged with function theory, differential calculus and integral calculus
 and this all can happen in the realm of a separable quaternionic Hilbert
 space and its non-separable companion Hilbert space. The different versions
 of quaternionic number systems relate to different elementary particles.
 When this is exploited, then the set of elementary particles restrict to the
 members of the first generation fermionic members of the standard model. You
 must read the paper “The Hilbert Book Test Model” in order to get the full
 explanation of electric and color charges of these particles. The paper also
 explains the mass of the particles and how they cause the deformation of the
 gravitation field. The model does not support a big bang. Instead it
 implements a history-less beginning. The paper treats only the lower levels
 of reality. It has its own model of a photon. The paper introduces some new
 mathematical methods. Please read: http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021 
 Sincerely yours, Hans
 Van: Physics [mailto:physics-bounces at tuks.nl] Namens mike at mlawrence.co.uk
 Verzonden: zaterdag 22 oktober 2016 14:40
 Aan: General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list
 Onderwerp: Re: [Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time (of
 Relativity) 
 Hans, 
 Thanks for the clarification. I would be interested to understand how you
 would treat my interpretation of what reality consists of. Put briefly,
 there is only one type of particle/anti-particle that exists. When the two
 are partly or wholly merged as a 'pair', they rotate, vibrate and move in
 three dimensions, alonside and overlapping with myriad others the same. They
 have their own time, but we cannot measure it because we are made of
 composites that form when such pairs unmerge and chase each other. The
 result is initially chains of such pairs, each particle/anti-particle
 chasing the next along, and being chased by the one behind. The second stage
 is the chains catching their own tails and forming loops. Loops of three
 pairs are our fermions. Their rotational rate, as they chase each other
 around the loop, gives the loop a frequency w and a size. Each particle has
 h angular momentum. Because the unmerging involves each
 particle/anti-particle spinning about an internal axis, each has + or - 1/6
 electron charge, and so the possible total loop charges correspond to our
 fermions. The masses of the particle/anti-particles in each loop give rise
 to what we term the ‘mass’ of the loop. The charges give rise to the loop
 charges and the spin of the loop ½ h. So the size of mass energy and spin
 energy in all loops is equal. Actually the total of any energy in a loop is
 always zero, but we can measure the effects that are observable as their
 mass, charge and spin. 
 So in terms of ‘time’, each loop is its own time, being the inverse of its
 frequency. In adding ‘energy’ to a loop (eg the electron) what we do is
 increase its rotational frequency. So every particle carries its own version
 of time within it. We can only use the loops to measure the frequencies of
 other loops, so the fundamental level of the original pairs is beyond our
 observation. 
 So in a big bang event, where pairs start to unmerge, time does not begin
 for us until loops start to form. Before that there is only fundamental
 time. 
 The paradox in the model is that there is always zero total energy in all
 loops. They move because of the effects of the same energy within one loop
 acting on the same energy in another loop. So although we can discuss the
 frequency of a loop as its time, and consider the frequency as an energy,
 there is no time or energy in total. This enables the quantum realm to
 exist, but only in volumes where there are no fundamental pairs to provide
 viscosity to resist the motion of loops. This resistance is what provides
 the speed of light, because the photon is a loop and anti-loop rotating in
 the same plane and merged across each particle/anti-particle in the opposite
 loop. The six new pairs thus formed are like a short chain, chasing/being
 chased at maximum force up to a terminal velocity. That terminal velocity is
 what we call light speed and depends on the density of pairs and loops in
 the local area. The ‘energy’ lost in the photon moving against the
 background viscosity results in a reduction in photon frequency – a red
 shift. The amount of red shift in photons up to extremely high frequencies
 is proportional to the individual distance travelled by each
 particle/anti-particle in the photon and has not be allowed for in any
 cosmological calculations. So part of the red shift we observe around us is
 due to viscosity, although I cannot estimate how much. 
 Just to complete the cycle, loops falling into a large black hole get
 stretched until they break back into chains. A black hole is thus a chain
 star where the mass, spin and charge of the infalling loops gets take
 gradually by the hole. There is no sudden event horizon and suitably
 energetic and symmetric photons can reform and escape the hole, although
 losing most of their frequency (energy!) in doing so. A black hole is thus
 also a symmetry machine, changing asymmetric and symmetric loops into only
 symmetric ones. 
 Since every loop has zero total energy, although with a frequency, then any
 loop is a valid centre for consideration as a centre of reference. The
 ‘mass’ that the loop appears to have is not in its component parts, but in
 the deflection it makes against space due to the physical area of the loop.
 There is no such general thing as ‘space-time’, only space and the
 individual time for the loop under consideration. 
 I would be interested to understand how you would treat my loops and their
 relationships with each other. 
 Apologies for the long post, but the paper with all the details is just
 about to be published and the final printed version requires proof reading.
 I will send a hyperlink when it is available. 
 Cheers 
 Mike 
 On Oct 22 2016, 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 ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20161022/f4d302e1/attachment.html>