Is time travel possible?
The laws of physics in the microscopic world suggest that it is because the physical processes they define at the subatomic level appear to be either entirely or mostly time symmetric. In other words the theoretical statements that describe them remain true if the direction of time is reversed. However, the opposite is true in the macroscopic world in that there is an obvious direction (or flow) of time. In others words, process in our macroscopic environment are observed to be asymmetric with respect to the direction of time appearing to rule out the possibility of traveling backwards in it.
Therefore, one way to understand why we as a civilization have been unable devise a mechanism for traveling back in time may be to understand difference between the macroscopic and microscopic worlds with respect to it because in one it seems possible while in the other it appears not to be.
Entropy appears to be the only quantity in the macroscopic world that "picks" a particular direction for time. As one goes "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics says the entropy or disorder of an isolated system will increase when no energy is consumed. In other words many in the scientific community believe the reason a system composed of multiple units must always move in forward with respect to time because to go back to a previous configuration one must add energy to it.
However, one cannot apply the concept of entropy to the microscopic world of atoms to determine its direction with respect to time because the entropy or relative disorder of system composed of signal entities such as an atom does not spontaneously increase as it moves through it. Therefore, one cannot use it to define its direction in microscopic systems because it does not quantifiably change as one "moves" through time.
Yet both these definitions define the direction or flow of time in terms of the physical configuration of its spatial components. For example, entropy or relative disorder of system composed of a signal atom does not spontaneously increase as it moves through time because its spatial position can only be reference to itself. This differs form systems that contain multiple entities in that the spatial configuration of its units can be compared to others in that system. The only difference between them with regards to defining their entropy with respect to the movement of time is what their spatial locations are reference to.
However the fact that we have been unable to move backwards in time in the microscopic universe suggests the casualty of time in that environment may not be related to the physical movement of an entity but to the causality of a quantifiable change in the spatial components of a system similar to the one that gives us direction for time in a macroscopic system.
For example in a multiunit system the causality of the increased entropy associated with the forward movement of time is directly related to its thermodynamic energy because it is what quantifies the direction of the changing spatial disorder in a system. Similarly in a single component system the sequential ordering of the causality of it moving to the left and then to the right will always define the direction of time in terms of its changing spatial position. In other words on can define the direction of time in both in terms of the causality of the systems spatial components.
As was mentioned earlier the second law of thermodynamics which defines the passage of time in the macroscopic world is based on a statistical definition was developed by Ludwig Boltzmann does not hold with strict universality: any system can fluctuate to a state of lower entropy.
However scientists have observed billions of particle collisions in which two particles collide to produce other particles however they have never observed two particles spontaneous coming together to form one particle even though statistically speaking they should happen much more often than in multi particle systems because they have considerably less complexity.
Therefore understanding the causality of the change in the position component of entities in both macro and microscope system may tell us if travel time travel is possible.
As was shown in the earlier article "Defining what time is" Sept. 20, 2007 defining the direction of time in terms of the sequential ordering of the causality of events would a provide a consistent direction for time in all environments because the causality of an atom moving to the left in both single or multiple component system would always be proceeded by the causality of that the same atom moving to the right; even though, as was mentioned earlier the behavior of the atom is not qualitatively different in either case. This would be true in both our physical and mathematical perceptions of time.
In other words defining it in terms of the sequential ordering of the causality of an event is consistent with the observation that events appear to always move forward in time in both the macroscopic universe and the microscopic world of particle accelerators because the casualty of particle breaking up into different parts must always proceed those parts coming together.
Some might think that it is not possible to tell the order in which events occurred without using time as a reference. However one can use the spatial properties of a system to determine it because the first event in a series would only be connected to the one before it while all other would be connected not only to that one but to the one after it. In other words one could determine the order in which the events occurred by referencing them to the one that has only one spatial connection and following the single line of events back towards there origin.
However this also rules out any possibility of one traveling through time because if it is only a measure of the sequential ordering of the causality of events then similar to all measurements it does not have physical properties so because one cannot travel through or in something that does not have a physical structure time travel is physically possible.
Is time travel possible?
The laws of physics in the microscopic world suggest that it is because the physical processes they define at the subatomic level appear to be either entirely or mostly time symmetric. In other words the theoretical statements that describe them remain true if the direction of time is reversed. However, the opposite is true in the macroscopic world in that there is an obvious direction (or flow) of time. In others words, process in our macroscopic environment are observed to be asymmetric with respect to the direction of time appearing to rule out the possibility of traveling backwards in it.
Therefore, one way to understand why we as a civilization have been unable devise a mechanism for traveling back in time may be to understand difference between the macroscopic and microscopic worlds with respect to it because in one it seems possible while in the other it appears not to be.
Entropy appears to be the only quantity in the macroscopic world that "picks" a particular direction for time. As one goes "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics says the entropy or disorder of an isolated system will increase when no energy is consumed. In other words many in the scientific community believe the reason a system composed of multiple units must always move in forward with respect to time because to go back to a previous configuration one must add energy to it.
However, one cannot apply the concept of entropy to the microscopic world of atoms to determine its direction with respect to time because the entropy or relative disorder of system composed of signal entities such as an atom does not spontaneously increase as it moves through it. Therefore, one cannot use it to define its direction in microscopic systems because it does not quantifiably change as one "moves" through time.
Yet both these definitions define the direction or flow of time in terms of the physical configuration of its spatial components. For example, entropy or relative disorder of system composed of a signal atom does not spontaneously increase as it moves through time because its spatial position can only be reference to itself. This differs form systems that contain multiple entities in that the spatial configuration of its units can be compared to others in that system. The only difference between them with regards to defining their entropy with respect to the movement of time is what their spatial locations are reference to.
However the fact that we have been unable to move backwards in time in the microscopic universe suggests the casualty of time in that environment may not be related to the physical movement of an entity but to the causality of a quantifiable change in the spatial components of a system similar to the one that gives us direction for time in a macroscopic system.
For example in a multiunit system the causality of the increased entropy associated with the forward movement of time is directly related to its thermodynamic energy because it is what quantifies the direction of the changing spatial disorder in a system. Similarly in a single component system the sequential ordering of the causality of it moving to the left and then to the right will always define the direction of time in terms of its changing spatial position. In other words on can define the direction of time in both in terms of the causality of the systems spatial components.
As was mentioned earlier the second law of thermodynamics which defines the passage of time in the macroscopic world is based on a statistical definition was developed by Ludwig Boltzmann does not hold with strict universality: any system can fluctuate to a state of lower entropy.
However scientists have observed billions of particle collisions in which two particles collide to produce other particles however they have never observed two particles spontaneous coming together to form one particle even though statistically speaking they should happen much more often than in multi particle systems because they have considerably less complexity.
Therefore understanding the causality of the change in the position component of entities in both macro and microscope system may tell us if travel time travel is possible.
As was shown in the earlier article "Defining what time is" Sept. 20, 2007 defining the direction of time in terms of the sequential ordering of the causality of events would a provide a consistent direction for time in all environments because the causality of an atom moving to the left in both single or multiple component system would always be proceeded by the causality of that the same atom moving to the right; even though, as was mentioned earlier the behavior of the atom is not qualitatively different in either case. This would be true in both our physical and mathematical perceptions of time.
In other words defining it in terms of the sequential ordering of the causality of an event is consistent with the observation that events appear to always move forward in time in both the macroscopic universe and the microscopic world of particle accelerators because the casualty of particle breaking up into different parts must always proceed those parts coming together.
Some might think that it is not possible to tell the order in which events occurred without using time as a reference. However one can use the spatial properties of a system to determine it because the first event in a series would only be connected to the one before it while all other would be connected not only to that one but to the one after it. In other words one could determine the order in which the events occurred by referencing them to the one that has only one spatial connection and following the single line of events back towards there origin.
However this also rules out any possibility of one traveling through time because if it is only a measure of the sequential ordering of the causality of events then similar to all measurements it does not have physical properties so because one cannot travel through or in something that does not have a physical structure time travel is physically possible.
Latter Jeff
Copyright 2016
of the Fourth
Spatial Dimension
Paperback
$9.77
Ebook
$6.24
The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 7 — 2016
The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 6 — 2015
Paperback
$12.25
Ebook
$9.89
The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 5 — 2014
Paperback
$14.84
Ebook
$9.97
The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 4 — 2013
Paperback
$14.95
Ebook
$7.99
The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 3 — 2012
Paperback
$11.54
Ebook
$6.55
The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
Vol. 2 — 2011
Paperback
$9.24
Ebook
$6.57
The Imagineer’s
Chronicles
2007 thru 2010
Paperback
$15.43
Ebook
$7.82
Is the quantization of energy/mass a fundamental or an emergent characteristic of reality.
Quantum mechanics assumes that it is fundamental because it defines all interactions within it in terms of its quantized properties while one could say that Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity defines it in terms of an emergent property of continuous spacetime manifold because that’s how it defines reality.
Most would agree the best way of which to determine which one is fundamental would be to see if one can be explain in terms of the other.
Richard Feynman Physics Lecture 01 – Photons, Corpuscles of Light 
For example it is impossible to explain the apparent continuous properties of spacetime in terms of the discrete properties quantum mechanics associates with energy/mass because by definition something that is discrete cannot by definition be continuous. However it is possible to explain how the continuous properties of spacetime can be broken up into the discrete components of energy/mass that allows quantum mechanics to define it in those terms.
Quantum mechanics assumes that energy/mass is quantized based, in part on Schrödinger wave equation which is used to predict and define the quantized energy distribution of electrons in an atom in terms of the Principal number (n), the Angular Momentum “ℓ” (l), Magnetic (m) and Spin Quantum Number(+1/2 and 1/2).
However as mentioned earlier it may be possible to define an emergent mechanism based on the reality of four dimensional spacetime that can explain why the energy distribution in a atom is quantized.
Yet because quantum mechanics defines its operational environment in terms of the spatial properties of position or momentum and not in terms of temporal properties of time or a spacetime environment it would be easier to understand how by redefining that environment in terms of its spatial equivalentEinstein gave us the ability to qualitatively and quantitatively convert the relativistic properties of a spacetime environment to an equivalent one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions when he defined its geometric properties in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light. This is because it allows one to redefine a unit of time he associated with energy in his spacetime universe to unit of space in one consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words by defining the geometric properties of a spacetime universe in terms of the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his spacetime universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.
However this would allow explain how the spatial characteristics of the energy distribution quantum mechanics associated with the four quantum numbers can emerge from reality of environment consisting of four dimensional spacetime or its four *spatial* dimension equivalent.
For example in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown one can explain the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the “reality” of a threedimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical 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 occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the “surface” of a threedimensional space manifold (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially with respect to it 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 threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
Therefore, these oscillations on a “surface” of threedimensional space, would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in space.
Observations of a threedimensional environment show the energy associated with resonant system can only take on the incremental or discreet values associated with a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.
Similarly the energy associated with resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions could only take on the discreet or incremental values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.
In other words this defines the quantization or the particle properties of energy/mass in terms of an emergent property of four *spatial* dimensions.
However the fact that one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the resonant properties of a wave in threedimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension means that one should also be able to derive the quantum numbers that define the properties of the atomic orbitals in those same terms.
As mentioned earlier there are four quantum numbers. The first the Principal Quantum number is designated by the letter “n”, the second or Angular Momentum by the letter ” ℓ” the third or Magnetic by the letter “m” and the last is the Spin or “s” Quantum Number.
In threedimensional space the frequency or energy of a resonant system is defined by the vibrating medium and the boundaries of its environment.
For example the energy of a standing wave generated when a violin string plucked is determined in part by the length and tension of its strings.
Similarly the energy of the resonant system the article ” Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with atom orbitals would be defined by the “length” or circumference of the threedimensional volume it is occupying and the tension on the space it is occupying.
Therefore the physicality of “n” or the principal quantum number would be defined by the fundamental vibrational energy of threedimensional space that article associated with the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass.
The circumference of its orbital would correspond to length of the individual strings on a violin while the tension on its spatial components would be created by the electrical attraction of the positive charge of the proton.
Therefore the integer representing the first quantum number would correspond to the physical length associated with the wavelength of its fundamental resonant frequency.
However, classical mechanics tells us that each environment has a unique fundamental resonant frequency which is not shared by others.
Additionally it also tells us why in terms of the physical properties four dimensional spacetime or four *spatial* dimensions an electron cannot fall into the nucleus is because, as was shown in that article all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems. In other words the energy released by an electron “falling” into it would have to manifest itself in terms of a resonate system. Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a stable resonate system in either four dimensional spacetime or four spatial dimension corresponds to the energy of an electron it becomes one of the fundamental energy unit of the universe.
This defines physicality of the environment associated with the first quantum number in terms of an emergent property of four *spatial* dimensions and why it is unique for each subdivision of electron orbitals. Additionally observations tell us that resonance can only occur in an environment that contains an integral or half multiples of the wavelength associated with its resonant frequency and that the energy content of its harmonics are always greater than those of its fundamental resonate energy.
This allows one to derive the physicality of the second “ℓ” or azimuth quantum number in terms of how many harmonics of the fundament frequency a given orbital can support.
In the case of a violin the number of harmonics a given string can support is in part determined by its length. As the length increase so does the number of harmonics because its greater length can support a wider verity of frequencies and wavelengths. However, as mentioned earlier each additional harmonic requires more energy than the one before it. Therefore there is a limit to the number of harmonics that a violin string can support which is determined in part by its length.
Similarly each quantum orbital can only support harmonics of their fundamental frequency that will “fit” with the circumference of the volume it occupies.
For example the first harmonic of the 1s orbital would have energy that would be greater than that of the first because as mentioned earlier the energy associated with a harmonic of a resonant system is always greater than that of its fundamental frequency. Therefore it would not “fit” into the volume of space enclosed by the 1s orbital because of its relatively high energy content. Therefore second quantum number of the first orbital will be is 0.
However it also defines why in terms of classical wave mechanics the number of suborbital associated with the second quantum number increases as one move outward from the nucleus because a larger number of harmonics will be able to “fit” with the circumference of the orbitals as they increase is size.
This also shows that the reason the orbitals are filled in the order 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 3d, 4s, 4p, 4d, 4f, 5s is because the energy of the 3d or second harmonic of the third orbital is higher in energy than the energy of the fundamental resonant frequency of the 4th orbital. In other words classical wave mechanics tells us the energy of the harmonics of the higher quantum orbitals may be less than that of the energy of the fundamental frequency of preceding one so their harmonics would “fit” into circumference of the lower orbitals
The third or Magnetic (m) quantum number physical defines how the energy associated with each harmonic in each quantum orbital is physically oriented with respect to axis of threedimensional space.
For example it tells us that the individual energies of 3 “p” orbitals are physically distributed along each of the three axis of threedimensional space.
The physicality of the fourth quantum or spin number has nothing to do with the resonant properties of space however as was shown in the article “Pauli’s Exclusion Principal: a classical interpretation” Feb. 15, 2012 one can derive its physicality by extrapolating the laws of a threedimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Briefly the article “Defining potential and kinetic energy?” Nov. 26, 2007 showed all forms of energy including the angular momentum of particles can be defined in terms of a displacement in a “surface* of threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. In threedimensional space one can use the right hand rule to define the direction of the angular momentum of charged particles. Similarly the direction of that displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension can be understood in term of the right hand rule. In other words the angular momentum or energy of an electron with a positive spin would be directed “upward” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension while one with a negative spin would be associated with a “downwardly” directed one.
Therefore one can define the physically of the fourth or spin quantum number in terms of the direction a “surface” of threedimensional space is displaced with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. For example if one defines energy of an electron with a spin of 1/2 in terms of a downward directed displacement one would define a +1/2 spin as an upwardly directed one.
The physical reason why only two electrons can occupy a quantum orbital and why they have slightly different energies can also be derived by extrapolating the laws of a classical threedimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
There a two ways to fill a bucket. One is by pushing it down and allowing the water to flow over its edge or by using a cup to raise it to the level of the buckets rim.
Similarly there would be two ways fill an atomic orbital according to the concepts presented in the article “Defining potential and kinetic energy?”. One would be by creating a downward displacement on the “surface” of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* to the level associated with the electron in that orbital while the other would be raise it up to that energy level .
However the energy required by each method will not be identical for the same reason that it requires slightly less energy to fill a bucket of water by pushing it down below its surface than using a cup to fill it.
However it also explains why no two quantum particles can have the same quantum number because observations of water show that there is a direct relationship between the magnitudes of a displacement in its surface to the magnitude of the force resisting that displacement.
Similarly the magnitude of a displacement in a “surface” of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two quantum particles with similar quantum numbers would greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, they will repel each other and seek the lower energy state associated with a different quantum number because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be less for them if they had the same number.
This shows how one can derive the physicality of the four quantum numbers of an emergent property of four *spatial* dimension or its spacetime equivalent.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016
Anthology of 
The Reality of the Fourth Spatial Dimension 

The Imagineer’s

The Imagineer’s Chronicles Vol. 5 — 2014 Paperback $14.84 Ebook $9.97 
The Imagineer’s 

The Imagineer’s 
The Imagineer’s 
The Imagineer’s 
