<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.E-mailStijl20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=NL link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Mike,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>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: <a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021">http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Sincerely yours, Hans<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>Van:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Physics [mailto:physics-bounces@tuks.nl] <b>Namens </b>mike@mlawrence.co.uk<br><b>Verzonden:</b> zaterdag 22 oktober 2016 14:40<br><b>Aan:</b> General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <physics@tuks.nl><br><b>Onderwerp:</b> Re: [Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time (of Relativity) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p>Hans, <o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p>I would be interested to understand how you would treat my loops and their relationships with each other. <o:p></o:p></p><p>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p>Cheers <o:p></o:p></p><p>Mike <o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>On Oct 22 2016, Hans van Leunen wrote: <br><br>Dear Mr Serret,<br><br><br><br>First the notion of time itself must be cleared. Contemporary physics<br>applies two notions of time: coordinate time and proper time. Coordinate<br>time is our common notion of time, but that choice causes a spacetime<br>structure with a Minkowski signature. This selection must be separated from<br>the fact that nature does not allow speeds faster than the speed of<br>information transfer. That subject is treated by Lorentz transforms. <br><br>So what is it that you want to discuss, the concept of time or the results<br>of Lorentz transforms?<br><br>The treatise of the concept of time goes to the foundation of reality. The<br>Lorentz transform is a pure mathematical concept.<br><br><br><br>It is possible to create a mathematical model of reality that can be<br>formulated in a few lines. The mathematical model applies a Euclidean<br>signature of the space-progression structure.<br><br>Progression corresponds to the proper time concept.<br><br>The model starts with its foundation, which is taken to be an orthomodular<br>lattice (the discoverers of this lattice called it "quantum logic"). <br>The set of closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space forms a realization<br>of this lattice. <br><br>The elements of an orthonormal base of this Hilbert space represent the<br>atoms of the lattice. <br><br>Hilbert spaces can only cope with division rings. These are number systems<br>of which every non-zero element owns a unique inverse. I choose the<br>quaternions as the number system. <br><br>The rational quaternions can be used to enumerate the members of a selected<br>orthonormal base. A special reference operator can be defined that uses the<br>members of the selected orthonormal base as eigenvectors and the enumerators<br>as the corresponding eigenvalues. <br><br>The next step involves the definition of a subspace that is spanned by the<br>eigenvectors that belong to eigenvalues that share the same real part. We<br>interpret this real part as progression and the imaginary part as spatial<br>location.<br><br>PROGRESSION IS A REAL NUMBER VALUED SCALAR THAT PLAYS THE ROLE OF PHYSICAL<br>TIME.<br><br>Now let the progression value increase. Consequently, the created subspace<br>scans as a vane over the Hilbert space and divides it in a historic part, a<br>static status quo (the vane), and a future part. <br><br>All discrete objects in universe appear to be modules or modular systems.<br>Elementary modules exist that are not configured from other modules. <br><br>In the model, the elementary modules are represented by one-dimensional<br>subspaces and a special operator provides them with a spatial location. That<br>operator uses a stochastic process to generate the location. <br><br>Thus, the elementary module hops in a hopping path. After a while the<br>landing locations of the hops have formed a (coherent) location swarm. The<br>swarm owns a location density distribution. Both the hopping path and the<br>location swarm represent the elementary module. The location density<br>distribution corresponds to the squared modulus of the wave function of the<br>elementary module.<br><br>The modules are interpreted as observers. The observers travel with the<br>vane. With these ingredients, the model offers two different views. One is<br>the creator's view. The other view is the observer's view. <br><br>The creator can view the model independent of the value of progression.<br>In the creator's view the observers follow a zigzag life path that at some<br>instants reflect against the vane, where observers can interpret the<br>incident as a pair creation or as a pair annihilation.<br><br>This simple model throws a different light on how the universe can be<br>structured. The model is more extensively treated in "The Hilbert Book Test<br>Model";<br>> <a href="http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021">http://vixra.org/abs/1603.0021</a><br><br>In order to comprehend the model, you must comprehend lattice theory,<br>Hilbert spaces and number systems.<br><br><br><br>Sincerely yours,<br><br>Hans van Leunen,<br><br>Retired physicist<br><br><br><br>Van: Physics [<a href="mailto:physics-bounces@tuks.nl">mailto:physics-bounces@tuks.nl</a>] Namens O. Serret<br>Verzonden: zaterdag 22 oktober 2016 10:20<br>Aan: <a href="mailto:physics@tuks.nl">physics@tuks.nl</a><br>Onderwerp: [Physics] Arguments for or against the variable time (of<br>Relativity)<br><br><br><br>Would you be interested to discuss the arguments about the variable time of<br>Relativity ?<o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>