The fact that we need two theories to explain the evolution of our universe means that one of them must have originated before the other.
For example Einstein’s relativistic and gravitational theories can explain predict the evolution of the large scale structure and movement of the stars and planets but cannot explain the structure of the atom. Additionally it cannot be used to explain one of the most important aspects of the universe’s evolution: how atoms fuse together in stars to create enough energy to prevent their gravitational collapse. While quantum mechanics explains the small scale structure of atom how they fuse together to prevent that from happening however it cannot be used to explain the evolutionary movement of the stars and planets.
Determining which on of these theory came first is difficult not only because no one was around to observe when they began but because they are defined in different units. For example Einstein theories define the universe in terms of the temporal field properties of a space-time dimension while quantum theories do so in terms discrete quantized properties of position. However if one can view them in terms of the same units one may be able to determine which one came first by showing how one could have evolved from the other.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the constant velocity of light in the equation E=mc^2 to define geometric properties of energy/mass because it allows one to convert a unit of time in his four dimensional space-time universe to a unit of space in a one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it is possible to defined a one to one correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words it would allow one to define both the evolution of gravity and the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in terms of a common property related to their spatial components.
This provides the bases for assuming, as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including that associated with gravity and the quantized energy associated with Schrödinger’s wave equation in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
For example as was shown in the "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct, 4 2007 one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws governing resonance in a classical three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
(Louis de Broglie was the first to predict the existence of a matter wave or the physical equivalent to Schrödinger’s wave equation when he theorized that all particles have a wave component. His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer).
Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would be meet by a matter wave in a four-dimensional environment.
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a "surface" of a three dimensional space manifold the ability to oscillate spatially with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.
These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
However these oscillations in four *spatial* dimensions would generate a classically resonating system or "structure" in it because it meets the requirements listed earlier for the creation of one.
These resonant structures are responsible for the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass.
Yet it also allows one to define the boundary of a quantum system in terms of the geometric properties of four *spatial* dimensions.
For example in classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space.
Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of a three-dimension volume with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct, 4 2007.
In other words one can understand how the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass could have evolved from field properties Einstein’s theories if one assumes that it is a result of the resonate structured form by a matter wave in continuous field properties of space
However if true one must also show how the probabilities associated with Schrödinger’s equation could have evolved out of that medium.
Classical mechanics tell us that because of the continuous properties of waves, the energy the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct, 4 2007 associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire "surface" a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension similar to how the wave generated by a vibrating ball on a surface of a rubber diaphragm are disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of the displacement it causes will decrease as one moves away from the focal point of the balls oscillations.
However, this means if one extrapolates the mechanics of the rubber diaphragm to a "surface" of three-dimensional space one must assume the oscillations associated with each individual quantum system must be disturbed thought the entire universe while the spatial displacement associated with its energy; defined in the in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 would decrease as one moves away from its focal point. Therefore their is a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment.
Classical Wave Mechanics also tells us a resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,
Similarly an observer would most probably find a quantum system were the magnitude of the vibrations in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point.
However this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can only define a particle’s position or momentum in terms of the probabilistic values associated with vibrations of its wave function.
In other words is it is possible to derive a scenario in which the concepts of quantum mechanics could have evolved out for the continuous field properties of an environment consisting of four dimensional space-time or four *spatial* dimensions.
As was mentioned earlier we can never by sure if Einstein’s theories or Quantum mechanics is the primary mover and creator of our universe because no one there when it began. However the fact that one can derive the concepts of quantum mechanics using Einstein’s theories is a strong indicate that it came first.
In other words it suggests that the Quantum chicken was more than likely born out of a Relativistic egg.
It should be remember that Einstein’s genius and the symmetry of his mathematics allows us to choose whether to define the evolution of the universe in either four *spatial* dimensions or four dimensional space-time.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016
of the Fourth
Vol. 4 — 2013
Understanding what time is and its causality is not easy in part because it is something that cannot be seen or touched. For example some define it only in the abstract saying that is an invention of the human consciousness that gives us a sense of order, a before and after so to speak. In other words most do not perceived time as matter or space but as an irreversible physical, chemical, and biological change in its physical properties.
However this is in direct conflict with how physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.
For example Einstein believed as the following quote demonstrates that time was a rigid physical component of a space-time environment defined by both his Special and General Theories of Relatively.
"Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence."
In other words according to Einstein the structure of space-time is ridge while the changes we perceive are merely an illusion similar to the illusion of change created in a flip book when one rapidly flips through its pages containing series of pictures that vary gradually from one page to the next.
However if one considered blocks of space-time as the pages of the flip book responsible for the illusion of change as Einstein did one still must still define the causality of the change on each page of that book which cannot be related to time if it is a ridge component of a space-time environment.
As mentioned earlier the idea of defining time terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension conflicts with the abstract properties most associate with change.
Yet one could resolve this conflict while defining why changes occurs in each segment of a space-time environment if one can show that change and therefore time is an emergent property of the physicality most of us including physicists associate with space. In other words if one can define the causality of change in terms of the physical properties of space then one could merge the abstract sense of order that our consciousness feels it has with its physical properties.
However to do this one must be able to understand the causes of change associated with time in terms of the perceive physical properties of space and then determine if one can integrate them into a theoretical model that is consistent with all of the other properties of that environment.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he defined the energy associated with change in space-time environment in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light because that provided a method of converting a unit time in that environment to its equivalent in four *spatial* dimensions. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
The fact that the equation E=mc^2 allows us to quantitatively derive energy in a space-time environment in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of change can be derived in terms of a displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of one in a space-time manifold.
As mentioned earlier Einstein believed it is more natural to think of physical reality in terms of a four dimensional existence, instead of the evolution of a three-dimensional existence even though he did not define the causality of change in that environment.
However as was shown earlier the symmetry of his mathematics means that he not only defined that "reality" in terms of four dimensional space-time but also in four *spatial* dimensions.
This enables one to derive the causality of change most associate with time in terms of the physical properties of the spatial dimensions instead of its abstract ones.
For example one can observe how a displacement in the geometry of three-dimensional space cases change by watching water flowing over a dam.
Similarly if as was shown above one defines energy in terms of a spatial displacement in a "surface" of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 one can define the transfer of energy associated with change in terms of the "level’ each segment of three-dimensional of space has with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. In other words change can be defined as an emergent property of four *spatial* dimensions because as one moves though Einstein’s space-time environment each successive section of three-dimensional space would be at a different level with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Granted due to the symmetrical nature of the arguments presented here one could argue that space is an emergent property of time.
However it is more consistent with observations of our three dimensional environment to assume that the changes most associate with time have their causality in the geometry of space because as was mentioned earlier we can see how that geometry causes change whereas the same cannot be done with respect to time because of its abstract properties.
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015