Physics is an observational science and therefore we must be careful to base our theoretical models directly on observations and not allow the members of our community to ignore them when submitting their theories.
For example, many feel the most reliable way to determine the age of the universe is by measuring its expansion rate base on the radial velocities of galaxies determined by the redshift in their light. Using that value, they imagine Schrodinger’s the universe to the point where everything was contained in a singularity, and calculate how much time must have passed between that moment (the Big Bang) and the present. Doing so tells us the universe is approximately 13.77 billion years.
But there is a problem because there are other things which would affect the redshift which were not taken into consideration when calculating its age.
For example, an observer watching an event like a star orbiting a black hole would notice that light coming from it is redshifted by its intense gravitational field.
In other words, since we can observe how gravity influences redshift, we also know that not taking its effects into account would make radial velocity of galaxies appear to be higher than it was thereby making the universe appear younger than it is.
This discrepancy is amplified by the fact most if not all evolutionary models of our expanding universe assume its gravitationally density increases as one goes back in time because its decreasing size causes its matter component to become more concentrated.
As was mentioned earlier, it has been observed light emanating from just above the event horizon of black hole is redshifted by its intense gravitational field. This means we know from direct observations the magnitude of the redshift coming from galaxies will increase as we go back in time due to the differential gravitational potential between the universe’s past and the present. However, this also means if we don’t take that into account we will overestimate the speed of the the universe expansion and therefore underestimated its age.
In other words, because the gravitational differential between the past and the present was not taken into consideration the universe MUST be older than 13.77 billion years when determined by the redshift.
There can be no other conclusion if one accepts the observations which verify a redshift can be caused by gravity and the fact that the gravitational density must have been greater in the past than it is now due to its expansion.
Some might say that because the density of the gravitational field expands along with the universe it would not affect redshift of light. However, Einstein’s theory of Relativity tells us all change, including that associated with the universe expansion is not a result of anything moving in time but through time. This concept is sometime represented by what is called a block universe where each event would be represented by a ridge block of spacetime which never changes.
In other words, the changes that occur in the universe as it expands are a result of movement though each ridge block of spacetime and not by changes in that block . Therefore, if one accepts Einstein theory the gravitational density of the early universe is still there exerting its influence on light from when it was emitted from the galaxy used to determine it age.
Note: we are not only taking about the gravity of a galaxy that existed when the light was emitted but the total gravitational potential of the universe that light is required to overcome as it travels from the past to the present.
One could make a better estimate of the universe’s age than the one we have now have if one could determine the total gravitational potential the universe had in the beginning. This would help us to determine how much of the redshift is a result of the radial velocity of galaxies and how much was a result of gravity.
The Cosmic background radiation may give us a way to do this because most assume the slight temperature variations across it tells how matter was distributed at the time it was emitted. One can use the magnitude those density differentials to determine how each part interacted with its neighbors to produce that distribution. This may permit us to estimate how much matter is represented by one of these temperature variations and by using Einstein’s field equations get an approximate value for the total mass and gravitational potential of the universe had at that time.
This would allow one to subtract the redshift caused by the differential gravitational potential at its origin of the visible universe with respect to what it is now to determine actual the radial velocity of galaxies and thereby a more accurate measure of its age.
However, the fact the universe MUST be older than 13.77 billion years based on observation of how gravity effects the redshift presents problems for some of the proponents of the inflationary big bang model because they have said that observation of the Cosmic background radiation have confirmed that is exactly how old it is.
To put it in the words of the European Space Agency.
Planck’s superbly precise new picture of the CMB (below) shows remarkable agreement with theoretical work, confirming that observations fit a simple cosmological model defined by just six numbers. (Take that in for a moment: the whole physical universe is described by six numbers.) (and) "When combined with other types of measurements, the that data homes in on an age for the universe of 13.798 billion years, give or take a mere 0.037."
Additionally, they tell us "Our inflationary model makes specific predictions about what this complex graph should look like. As you can see, Planck’s observations (red dots) trace nigh perfectly the theory (green line). My colleague Alan freaked out when he saw the tight fit at the graph’s far right” you don’t appreciate the wonders of scientific progress until you have a 6foot3 man jumping up and down in your office.
However, as was shown above the universe must be older than 13.77 billion years because the effects gravity has on the redshift were not taken into account when considering its age.
In other words, very fact that those (red dots) trace perfectly Alan’s theoretical prediction that the universe is 13.77 billion years old invalidates it because as was just mentioned it MUST be older than that.
As was motioned earlier, Physics is an observational science and therefore we, in the physics community must not allow our members to ignore ones that we know will eventually will invalidate their theories. This is because their inevitable downfall not only reduces our creditability but also slows the progress to a better understanding of how the universe really functions. This is in part because governments and the public will be less willing to fund the research of those who have a chance to succeed after spend large sums of money on those that are doomed to failure because their authors chose to ignore the observations that WILL eventually invalidate their theories.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020.
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project
The Road to  The Road to  The Road to 
One of the biggest problems is cosmology is accurately determining how far distance objects are away from us.
In 1998 researchers discovered the repulsive side of gravity when they discovered a discrepancy in apparent brightness of light from type 1A supernovae, which exploded billions of years ago suggested that it had traveled a greater distance than theorists predicted it should.Â From that they concluded that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up, not slowing down. This was such a radical finding that some cosmologists suggested that the falloff in supernova brightness was the result of other affects, such as intergalactic dust dimming the light. In the past few years, though, astronomers have solidified the case for cosmic acceleration by studying ever more remote supernovae.
But there is something else other than dust which would affect the measurement of theirÂ distance.
For example, Einstein tells us and observations of black holes confirm that light losses energy and becomes dimmer as it exits or "climbs" out of a gravitational field.
In other words, the assumption that one can accurately determine the distance of an object based solely using its luminosity and its apparent brightness is simply wrong.
Most of if not all theoretical models of the universe assume that it evolved from a gravitationally denser environment than it is it now.
Therefore, we would expect light that was emitted from an exploding star billions of years to grow fainter due the differential gravitation potential as it leaves the past and enters the instruments used by today’s researchers to measure its apparent brightness.
Note: we are not taking about the gravity of the star that exploded billions of years in the past but the total gravitational potential of the universe that light is required to overcome as it travels from the past to the present.
Some might say that the because the density of the gravitational field expands along with the universe it would not affect apparent brightness of light from the type 1A supernovaes use in the above study.Â However, Einstein tells us all change, including that associated with the universe expansion is not a result of anything moving through time but in time.Â This concept is sometime represent by what is called a block universe where each event would be represented by a ridge block of spacetime which never changes and the changes that occur in the universe as it expands are a result of movement though each ridge block and not by changes in in that block of spacetime. Therefore, if one accepts Einstein theory the environment were1A supernovae exploded billions of years is still there exerting its gravitational influence from billions of light years away when observed in1998.
This means the discrepancy in the light found in 1998 may not only be due to the distance it traveled but to the energy lose it experiences is due to the differential gravitational potential that exits between its point of origin and where is was observed.
The simple fact is that the conclusion the universe expansion is accelerating must be reconsidered if they did not take into account the effect of the differential gravitational density between then and now had on light as it moved through space.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project
The Road to  The Road to  The Road to 
Physics is an observational science and therefore we must be careful to base our theoretical models on those observations and make sure the theoretical predictions we make using them conform to them.
For example, the "Big Bang" the most widely accepted theoretical model of the universe’s beginning assumes it was an extremely hot dense environment which cooled as it expanded making conditions just right to give rise to the building blocks of matter, the quarks and electrons of which we are all made and later quarks aggregated to produce protons and neutrons. Within minutes, these protons and neutrons combined into nuclei. As the universe continued to expand and cool, things began to happen more slowly. It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. Present observations suggest that the first stars formed from clouds of gas around 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
But there is a problem because that estimate is based on the assumption that the passage time is constant throughout the universe’s evolution while Einstein and observations tell us that moves slower wherever gravity is stronger.
For example, an external observer watching an event like an object falling into a black hole would notice that its motion toward it slows as it approached its event horizon due to the density of its gravitation field.
As was just mentioned, the big bang model assumes based on observations that the first stars formed from clouds of gas around 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
However, that assumes time was moving at the same speed for both the evolution of those passed events and for those who are observing it from the present.
Yet, Einstein and the observation of events happening near a black hole, regarding the affect gravity has on time tell us something different. They tell us the timing of events must have moved faster when the universe young than it does from the perspective of presentday observers because, due to its expansion the matter and gravitational density was greater back then than it is now.
In other words, defining the time between events at the beginning of our universe must be based not only on the observations made today but on relative strength of gravity between present day observers and what it was at the time they are observed.
This tells us an event that appears to a 150 to 200 million years to occur from the perspective of an observer in the present would not have taken that long if viewed by someone who was present when it occurred.
It is important to remember this slowing of the timing of events is not related to the velocity of the expansion of the universe but directly to relative strength of gravity between the observed and what he is observing at the time the event occurred.
Some might try to claim that this would not be the case because gravity was also expanding at the same rate the universe and therefore it would not effect how long it would take for events to occur. However, if we are truly looking back in time to when the event occurred, we must assume that the conditions we observed are not change by its expansion because that would mean the future can change the past.
As was mentioned earlier the big bang model tells the first stars formed from clouds of gas around 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
However, as was shown above they could not have taken long if they were observed in the environment where they were forming because of the effect’s gravity has on time. This means, for the big bang model to remain a viable explanation of the universe evolution it must not only revamp the time line for their formation but the time lines for the future events that were based on the theoretical model suggesting they formed 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
Some proponents of the Big Bang model may try to deny that there any difference between the timing of events from the perspective of an observer looking them from present and past even while telling us that the gravitational density was stronger in the past.
That would be hard for them justify that conclusion because we have observed, as was mentioned earlier a denser gravitational field cause time and therefore the timing of events to move slower from the perspective of an outside observer. Additionally, it is one of primary predictions of the General Theory of Relativity which they used to define the formation and evolution of stars and the largescale structures we observe in today’s universe.
This means they would have to not only deny that gravity has been observed to effect time but the validity the General Theory of Relativity because it unequivocally states that it must. However, as was just mentioned they used it to define the theoretical structure of the Big Bang model.
In other words, the only way they can justify the validity of Big Bang model of the universe’s evolution would be to show that it can explain the observable structures of the present universe in terms of the formation of the first stars occurring in something other than 150 to 200 million years after the Big Bang.
Unfortunately, there are no other choices.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project
The Road to  The Road to  The Road to 
Quantum mechanics defines the position of all particles in the universe only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with Schrodinger’s wave equation. In other words, it tells us that because they are defined in terms probabilities they are randomly distributed throughout the entire universe before being observed.
However, Einstein disagreed. He felt one could explain those probabilities in terms of the observable properties of the physical universe. In other words, he felt because it would be more natural or probable to observe a particle or objects to be located at, or, at the very least, near where it’s found a moment later instead of assuming they are spread out over the entire universe as Quantum mechanics does.Â If that is the case, a deeper understanding of physics should provide that information which will contradict that aspect of quantum mechanics.Â
The most logical way to determine if this is possible would be to integrate the observable properties of particles with those of our physical universe to see if one can explain them.
This would be true even though we cannot observe an individual quantum particle because there are properties of it that we can observe.
For example, as was mentioned earlier quantum mechanics defines the structure of the universe in terms of the abstract probabilities associated with Schrodinger’s wave equation which only become physical or nonabstract when observed. This is why it assumes that our universe has a dual existence; the physical one associated with particles and the nonphysical or probabilistic one associated with Schrodinger’s wave equation. Additionally, it assumes that when an observation is made that equation and the probabilities associated with its "collapse" to create physical universe as we know it at the time of the observation.
But the physicality of its wave component was confirmed in 1927 by Davisson and Germer by the observation that electrons and later all particles can be diffracted by crystals. This provides observational verification of physicality of the wave/particle duality of Quantum Mechanics associates with both particles and the universe because the only way to explain the diffraction pattern produce is to assume that that they are made up of electromagnetic waves.
However, it showed the successes of Schrodinger’s wave equation may not be based purely on the mathematics of probabilities but on the physical properties of the energy wave observed by Davisson and Germer.
Yet, before we can understand why, we must first view the universe in terms of the spatial properties of position to understand how the physical properties of that wave interacts with it to define its position when observed. In others words to show why "it would be more natural or probable to observe a particle to be located at, or, at the very least, near where it’s found a moment later one must define the universe in terms of its spatial instead of its time properties, as Einstein had done in his Special and General theories of relativity.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he defined the geometric properties of spacetime in terms of the constant velocity of light because that provided a method of converting a unit of time in a spacetime environment of unit of space 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 spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
Doing so allows one to understand how the randomness of a particles position, as defined by quantum mechanics is not dependent on the abstract properties of Schrodinger’s wave equation but on the physical properties of the universe as define by Einstein.
For example, the article, "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 showed that one can use the spatial equivalent of Einstein’s theories, defined above to explain the quantum mechanical properties of an electromagnetic wave by extrapolating the rules of classical resonance in a threedimensional environment to the energy wave discovered by Davisson and Germer moving on the “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 an energy wave moving in four *spatial* dimensions.
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give an energy of the wave, mentioned earlier Davisson and Germer discovered the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and 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.Â 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.
However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established on a surface of a threedimensional space manifold.
Yet the classical laws of threedimensional space tell us the energy of resonant systems can only take on the discontinuous or discreet energies associated with their fundamental or harmonic of their fundamental frequency.
However, these are the similar to the quantum mechanical properties of energy/mass in that they can only take on the discontinuous or discreet energies associated with the formula E=hv where "E" equals the energy of a particle "h" equal Planck’s constant "v" equals the frequency of its wave component.
Yet it also allowed us to define the physical boundaries of a quantum system in terms of the geometric properties of four *spatial* dimensions.
In physics, a point on the twodimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to threedimensional space.
Similarly, an object occupying a volume of threedimensional 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 threedimension 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?".
In other words, the energy wave in four *spatial* dimensions associated with the dual particle/wave properties of existence define by quantum mechanics will maintain its wave properties unless it is confined to three by an observation, then it will be observed as particle
This suggests that it is not the abstract properties of Schrodinger’s wave equation that collapses when an observation is made but instead it is the collapse of the wave energy observed by Davisson and Germer when confined to threedimensional space by an observation.e
The physics of wave mechanics also tells us that due to their continuous properties the energy waves the article "Why is energy/mass quantized?" Oct. 4, 2007 associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire "surface" a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
For example, the energy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm would be disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of those vibrations would decrease as one move away from the focal point of the oscillations.
Similarly, if the assumption that quantum properties of energy are a result of vibrations or oscillations in a "surface" of threedimensional space is correct those oscillations would be distributed over the entire "surface" threedimensional space while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it.
(Some may question the fact that the energy wave associated with particle would be distributed over the entire universe. However, the relativistic properties of spacetime and four *spatial* dimensions tell us that distance perceived by objects or particles in relative motion is dependent on their velocity which become zero at the speed of light.Â Therefore, from the perspective of an electromagnetic wave moving at the speed of light, the distance between all points in the universe along its velocity vector is zero.Â In other words, its energy is distributed or simultaneous exists at every point in the universe along its velocity vector.Â There can be no other conclusion if one accepts the validity of Einstein’s theories.)
As mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?â” shown a quantum particle is a result of a resonant structure formed by an energy wave on the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Yet, the science of Wave Mechanics tells us 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, a particle would most probably be observed were the magnitude of the vibrations in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point.
Yet, observations of the physical world around us tell that point will most likely not be very different from where it was a moment ago.
However this also tell us because of the physicals properties of the wave/particle component of the universe they will have a definite position relative to each other.
As was mentioned earlier, the probabilistic interoperation of Schrodinger’s wave equation tells us that all the particles in the universe are randomly disturbed before being observed.
However, as was show above, one could argue it only defines the probability of finding the position were the collapse of the wave associated with each individual particle occurs.Â In other words, contrary to currently accepted Quantum Mechanical interpretation, the individual particle/wave components of the universe are not randomly disturbed because, as was shown aboveÂ they would have a definite position relative to each other before it is observed.
Therefore, Einstein assumption, mentioned earlier that "it would be more natural or probable to observe a particle to be located at, or, at the very least, near where it’s found a moment earlier would be consistent with that probabilistic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.Â Because, as the above discussion shows one cannot, in a universe governed by its wave/particle duality and Relativity know exactly were a particle will be when observed.
in other words, "The Reality of the Quantum Universe" can be understood in terms of is wave/particle duality and the spacetime environment defined by Einstein.
It should be remembered Einstein’s genius allows us to choose whether to define the probabilities in Quantum Mechanics in either a spacetime environment or one consisting of only four *spatial* dimension when he defined its geometry in terms of the constant velocity of light.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project.
The Road to
 The Road to
 The Road to

A fundamental issue in Einstein Theory of Relativity is if all motion is relative how can we measure the inertia of a body? Einstein and many others assumed we must measure it with respect to something else. But what if a particle is the only thing in the universe, how can we measure it.
Mach, an Austrian physicist and philosopher developed a principle which some have interpreted as the motion of such a particle’s has no meaning if it was alone in the universe.
In Mach’s words, "the principle is expressed as the investigator must have knowledge of the immediate connections, say, of the masses of the universe. There will hover before him as an ideal insight into the principles of the whole matter, from which accelerated and inertial motions will result in the same way."
Einstein considered Mach prospective so important to the development of General Relativity that he christened it Mach’s principle and used it to explain why inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies.
For example, according to General Relativity, the benchmarks for all motion, and accelerated motion in particular, are freely falling observers who have fully given in to gravity and are being acted on by no other forces. Now, a key point is that the gravitational force to which a freely falling observer acquiesces arises from all the matter (and energy) spread throughout the cosmos.Â In other words, in general relativity, when an object is said to be accelerating, it means the object is accelerating with respect to a benchmark determined by matter spread throughout the universe. That’s a conclusion which has the feel of what Mach advocated. So, in this sense, general relativity does incorporate some of Mach’s thinking.
However, he provided another way of defining inertia that does not require the existence of any other objects but relies only on the geometric properties of space defined in his General Theory of Relativity. In other words, geometry of space itself provides an absolute baseline for inertia.
In physics inertia is the resistance a physical object to a change in its velocity. Therefore, one can define a baseline for its measurement if one can find a universal starting point for it based on objects velocity.
One of the most logical ways to do that would be to use the observable differences between the two types of motion; velocities and accelerations.
For example, velocities transverse the same space or distance in a given time frame while accelerations transverse an exponentially increasing distance over that same time period.
This tells us the primary difference between them is a component of space not time because if one uses the same time frame for both the only thing that distinguishes them is the distance they transverse.
However, Einstein defined the geometry of space and our universe in terms of time therefore, because space not time is, the variable that distinguishes velocities from accelerations, we should look for a way to define motion and it energy purely in terms of its spatial properties.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he defined the mathematical relationship between space, time and energy in terms of the constant velocity of light because in doing so, he provided a method of converting a unit of time in a spacetime environment to its equivalent unit of space in four *spatial*Â dimensions. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words, Einstein’s mathematics actually defines two mathematically equivalent physical models of the universe, one consisting of fourdimensional spacetime and one of only four *spatial* dimensions.
This allows one to define the energy associated with both accelerations and velocities, in terms of a displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in fourdimensional spacetime.
In other words, using the spatially equivalent model of Einstein spacetime theories one could define the energy associated with velocities in terms of a linear displacement in the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension because it remains constant as an object moves though space.
While one would define accelerations both gravitational and non gravitational in terms of a nonlinear displacement or curvature in that "surface" because, as was mentioned earlier it increases as a object move though space.
In other words, if one defines gravitational accelerations in terms of a positive nonlinear displacement or curvature in that "surface" one would define all other forms of accelerations in terms of an oppositely directed displacement or curvature in that "surface".
Additionally, the magnitude of the linear displacements associated with relative velocities is dependent on the energies associated with their movement or momentum while the degree of the nonlinear displacement associated with accelerations would also be dependent on the magnitude of the energy required to cause them.
In other words, the greater the relative velocities or accelerations the greater the displacement or curvature in the "surface" of the three dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension associated with their motion.
What makes accelerated motion different from velocities is that they do not create an energy gradient in space necessary to activate the human senses or measuring instruments because, as was just mentioned the displacement they create is linear with respect to the "surface" of the three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension
Therefore, the reason it only makes sense to say that this is moving with respect something is because referencing it to that something provides an energy gradient or differential which can activate measuring equipment or human senses.
However, because Einstein tells us the displacement in the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial *dimension associated with accelerated motion is nonlinear it will intrinsically create an energy gradient between two points space.
This also allows one to define a universal baseline for the measurement of inertia in terms of the linear displacement in that "surface" because as mentioned earlier it defines the energy level of all constant motion.Â
As was mentioned earlier, in physics inertia is a measure of the resistance or force (over a given time period) required to the change the velocity of a physical object. Therefore, to define an absolute benchmark for measuring it one must first define a starting point for the energy gradient that, as mentioned earlier is responsible for acceleration.Â Additionally to make it universal benchmark that point must be the same of all objects and particles.
Therefore, a universal baseline for the measurement of the inertia in all objects is the linear displacement in that "surface" with respect to a fourth spatial dimension associated with their velocity before a measurement was taken .Â In other words, one can measure the inertia of all objects by measuring the energy difference (in a given time frame) between its starting displacement in space and its displacement at the end points.Â In other words, it defines a universal starting point or baseline the measurement of inertia for all objects.
Some have said that one cannot measure the inertia of a particle or object that exists alone in the universe because one cannot reference its movements to anything.Â However, referencing its velocity with respect to the universe is not relevant to its measurement because Einstein tells us that the energy of velocity is made up of two parts.Â One is the energy of associated with its velocity and the other is that of the energy of it’s rest mass defined by the equation E=mc^2.Â Therefore, because the displacement that defines a object is made up of two parts the energy of its rest mass and that of its velocity does not need to be reference to any other object or particle. In other words the mass of the object provides the displacement or baseline for measuring the inertia of a particle or object at rest. Therefore, its movement or velocity or lack of it with respect to the entire universe will not effect that measurement because it is determined only by the energy required to produce a change in its velocity or the displacement the "surface" of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension that is responsible for that change.
This shows how one can derive a universal baseline for measuring the inertia of all particles and objects in terms of the physical geometry of space as defined by Einstein.
It should be remembered that Einstein, by defining the universe’s geometry in terms of the constant velocity of light allows us to choose whether to define inertia either a spacetime environment or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project
The Road to  The Road to  The Road to 
15
Is it an intrinsic property of space that cause velocities to make sense only by saying that this is moving with respect to something while accelerations or changes in velocity don’t require comparisons to give them meaning?
Newton came to conclusion it was based an experiment involving a bucket of water.
Greene, Brian describes his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" (Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group) why he though space
this by observing a spinning of a bucket hanging from rope filled with water. At first, after it is allowed to unwind the bucket starts to spin but the water inside remains fairly stationary; the surface of the stationary water stays nice and flat. As the bucket picks up speed, little by little its motion is communicated to the water by friction, and the water starts to spin too. As it does, the water’s surface takes on a concave shape, higher at the rim and lower in the center,
"Why does the water’s surface take this shape? Well, because it’s spinning, you say, and just as we feel pressed against the side of a car when it takes a sharp turn, the water gets pressed against the side of the bucket as it spins. And the only place for the pressed water to go is upward. This reasoning is sound, as far as it goes, but it misses the real intent of Newton’s question. He wanted to know what it means to say that the water is spinning: spinning with respect to what? Newton was grappling with the very foundation of motion and was far from ready to accept that accelerated motion such as spinning is somehow beyond the need for external comparisons.
A natural suggestion is to use the bucket itself as the object of reference. As Newton argued, however, this fails. You see, at first when we let the bucket start to spin, there is definitely relative motion between the bucket and the water, because the water does not immediately move. Even so, the surface of the water stays flat. Then, a little later, when the water is spinning and there isn’t relative motion between the bucket and the water, the surface of the water is concave. So, with the bucket as our object of reference, we get exactly the opposite of what we expect: when there is relative motion, the water’s surface is flat; and when there is no relative motion, the surface is concave.
Newton explained the terrestrial bucket experiment in the following way. At the beginning of the experiment, the bucket is spinning with respect to absolute space, but the water is stationary with respect to absolute space. That is why the water’s surface is flat. As the water catches up with the bucket, it is now spinning with respect to absolute space, and that is why its surface becomes concave. As the bucket slows because of the tightening rope, the water continues to spin spinning with respect to absolute space”and that is why its surface continues to be concave."
However, Einstein demonstrated, in his Theory of Relativity that absolute space does not exist, therefore their must exist another reason for the concavity of the water in Newton’s
Bucket.
One of the most logical ways to find it would be to use the observable differences between the two types of motion; velocities and accelerations.
For example, velocities transverse the same space or distance in a given time frame while accelerations transverse an exponentially increasing distance over that same time period.
This tells us the primary difference between them is a component of space not time because if one uses the same time frame for both the only thing that distinguishes them is the distance they transverse.
However, Einstein defined the geometry of space and our universe in terms of time therefore, because space not time is, as was just mentioned the variable that distinguishes velocities from accelerations, we should look for a way to define motion purely in terms of its spatial properties.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he defined the mathematical relationship between space, time and energy in terms of the constant velocity of light because in doing so, he provided a method of converting a unit of time in a spacetime environment to its equivalent unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions.Â Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words, Einstein’s mathematics actually defined two mathematically equivalent physical models of the universe, one consisting of fourdimensional spacetime and one of only four *spatial* dimensions.
This allows one to define the energy associated with both accelerations and velocities, in terms of a displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension as well as one in fourdimensional spacetime.
In other words, using the spatially equivalent model of Einstein spacetime theories one could define energy associated with velocities in terms of a linear displacement in the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension because it remains constant for a given time interval.
While one would define accelerations both gravitational and non gravitational in terms of a nonlinear displacement or curvature in that "surface" because, as was mentioned earlier it increases for as it moves through time.
In other words, if one defines gravitational accelerations in terms of a positive nonlinear displacement or curvature in that "surface" one would define all other forms of accelerations in terms of an oppositely directed displacement or curvature in that "surface".
Additionally the magnitude of the these displacements for both accelerations or a those associated with relative velocities is dependent on there energies associated with there movement.
In other words, the greater the relative velocities or accelerations the greater the displacement in the "surface" of the three dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial *dimension
associated with their motion
What makes accelerated motion different from velocities is that they do not create an energy gradient in space necessary to activate senses because, as was just mentioned the displacement they create on the "surface" of the three dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension is linear.
Therefore, the reason it only makes sense to say that this is moving with respect something is because referencing it to that something provides an energy gradient or differential which can activate measuring equipment or human senses.
However, because Einstein tells us the displacement in the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial *dimension associated with accelerated motion is nonlinear its movement will intrinsically create an energy gradient between two points space which can activate measuring equipment or human senses.
In other words, the reasons it only make sense to say that this is moving with respect something while changes in velocity or accelerations don’t is because acceleration intrinsically cause energy gradients between different points in space where as velocities do not.
This would also explain the observations Newton made in his bucket experiment because the energy or velocity of the water is different at each point in the bucket. In others word, because the water near the bucket’s edge is moving faster or is accelerated with respect its center it has more energy and therefore will create a larger displacement in the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension resulting in its "surface" becoming a concave. In other words, the concavity of the surface of the water in Newton bucket is not caused by an interaction with space or the bucket but due to direct effects Einstein showed the energy associated with the velocity of the water has of the geometry of space.
However, this also tells us that what makes space space is energy.
For example, what makes the space in a house and its rooms is not a property of that space but is a property of the geometric structure created by its foundation and walls
Similarly, Einstein tells us that what makes space space in our universe is not a property of space but of the geometric structure created by energy.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project
The Road to  The Road to  The Road to 
Is there lower limit to the size of our universe. In other words, how many times can the universe and its mass components be divided up into smaller and smaller chunks until it can divided no farther.
The answer would most likely be found in the two dormant theories, Quantum Mechanics and Einstein’s Theories of Relativity which are used by cosmologists and particle physics to define its evolution.
For example, Einstein’s theories say very little about its origins but it does say a lot about how its components interact to create its observable structures and while doing so tells a lot about how they interact to define the lower limit of its size.
While on the other hand, a few Quantum Mechanical Theories define its evolution and the lower limit to its size in terms of an infinitesimally small point in spacetime. However, it is unable to providing any details about how its components, after its beginnings interact to create the universe, we can observe around us.
For example, one theory called the Big Bang, which is based on the mathematics of Quantum Theory defines its beginnings and the lower limit to its size in terms of the expansion of a point in spacetime called a quantum fluctuation while defining its evolution not in terms of how its component interact but in terms of points in spacetime that represent positions of all of the particles it contains at the time they are observed.
This technique of using a onedimensional point to represent a particle or an objects position is similar to how NASA defines the orbits of planet and its space probes.
For example, they do not use physical size or the volume of a planet to calculate position and interactions with its orbiting components, instead they use a onedimensional point at its center called the center of gravity to represent those interactions.
Similarly, quantum mechanics does not need to use physical size of a particle to define its position because similar to how NASA can use a point at the center of an object to represent it, it can use a point in spacetime that is in the center of a particle to represent its position. In other words, the fact that Quantum mechanics describes the microscopic environment of particles in terms of onedimensional points does not mean that they do not have size.
As was mentioned, earlier Quantum Mechanics assumes the universe began as quantum fluctuation which is a mathematically defined as point in spacetime. In other words, it assumes the size of the universe could be, at its beginning smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.
However, Einstein theories tell us a completely different story of its beginning.
For example, it tells us that matter can only compacted so much before the forces of gravity and time stop it from going any further.
This is true even though in 1915, Karl Schwarzschild proposed based on Einstein theories the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would collapse to form a black hole whose which is a region where time stops and neither light nor particles can escape from it. However, many assumed that the collapse continues until is compacted into a onedimensional point or singularity in spacetime.
One can understand why those that believed that came to the wrong conclusion by analyzing how those forces interact to create a black hole as was done in the previous article "Time is a force more powerful than those of a black hole" published on Aug 31, 2019
Briefly
"In Kip S. Thorne book " Black Holes and Time Warps ", he describes how in the winter of 193839 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity. On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, form the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter. They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect. "Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward slowly at first then more and more rapidly. However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface. The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.
However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.
Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped with respect to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.
But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.
Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field. Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.
This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface. The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.
Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction.
However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither "pushed not pulled by any force and Therefore, continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began".
This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.
(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side. Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)
(However, some have suggested that a singularity would form in a black hole if the collapse of a star was not symmetrical with respect to its center. In other words, if one portion of its surface moved at a higher velocity that another towards its center it could not be consider an inertial reference frame because it would be pushed or pulled due to the differential gravity force cause be its uneven collapse. But the laws governing time dilation in Einstein’s theory tell us that time would move slower for those sections of the surface that are moving faster allowing the slower ones to catch up. This tells us that every point on the surface of star will be at the event horizon at the exact same time and therefore its center will not experience any pushing or pulling at the time of its formation and therefore could be considered an inertial reference frame.)
The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center. The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.
Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for all observers who are at the center of the clasping mass the contraction cannot continue from their perspectives.
Yet, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.
As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reaches the critical circumference. Therefore, an observer on the surface of that star will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.
This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.
However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing. Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference. The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.
Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stopped with respect to all reference frames that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.
However, the contraction of a star’s surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting. But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time in its external environment would become infinitely dilated or stop when the surface of a collapsing star reaches its critical circumference.
Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference with respect to the external environment of an observer who riding on its surface the contraction cannot continue because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.
This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces the collapse of matter must stop at the critical circumference.
This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.
In other words, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity or a onedimensional point as many physicists believe because it causes time to freeze at its critical circumference with respect to all observers. Therefore, a universe whose evolution is governed by his theories must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is greater than the one defined by Schwarzschild radius because if it were smaller matter could not move through that boundary in space time and it could not evolve any further."
However. the same principle must be applied to the size of the universe at its beginning. In other words, if time stops at the Schwarzschild radius any object or component of a universe smaller than that could not move through it and evolve to form the structures we observed today.
Additionally, Schwarzschild radius also defines the lower limit to size of all subatomic particles because it defines where time would stop at their surface. Therefore, if they were smaller or even equal to that radius they could not interact with the other particles because time would stop as they approached each other and interaction with other particles would never happen.
In other words, in a universe governed by Einstein’s theories the lower limit to the size of both the universe and the particles it contains is defined by Schwarzschild radius.
Yet this would seem to contract the quantum mechanical description of a particle as being represented as point in spacetime without an extended volume.
HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT THE CASE because, as was mentioned earlier the point in spacetime that quantum mechanics defines as the position of a particle could be interpreted as the center of wave component of its duality similar to how NASA uses the point at the center of mass of an extended object to determine its position in spacetime as was shown in the article published on Jan. 1, 2020 "Particles as standing waves in spacetime"
Yet, it is possible that someone with better mathematical skills than me may be able to unify the Quantum universe with Einstein’s by mathematically describing a environment in which the point description of a particle defines the energy center of its wave component of its wave particle duality while showing how that point interacts with their environment based on those properties similar to how NASA uses the center of the energy or gravitational components of planets to how they interact with other each other.
Latter Jeff
Copyright 2020 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project
The Road to  The Road to  The Road to 
One question that has yet to be answer regarding Einstein relativistic theories is how time and space interact to create the past, present and future.
Einstein side step this question by assuming, as he put it "there exists in this fourdimensional structure [spacetime] 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 fourdimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a threedimensional existence."
Marina Cort’s, a cosmologist from the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh defined what has come to be called the block universe to help us understand how Einstein may have viewed the past present and future.
Basically, she asks us to imagine a regular chunk of cement. It has three dimensions but we live in four dimensions: the three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. A block universe is a fourdimensional block, but instead of being made of cement, it is made of spacetime. And all of the space and time of the Universe are there in that block."
We can’t see this block, we’re not aware of it, as we live inside the cement of spacetime. And we don’t know how big the block universe we live in is: "We don’t know if space is infinite or not. Or time – we don’t know whether it has a beginning or if it will have an end in the future. So, we don’t know if it’s a finite chunk of spacetime or an infinite chunk."
In other words, the past, present, and future exist simultaneously and are locked in a nondynamic, unchanging block of spacetime with the rigidity of cement.
However, to understand why Einstein he had to make this assumption one must first define what space and time are.
For example, some define time 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.Â To physicist’s it is a measure of the relative interval between events which is measured in units of time such as seconds.
While space can be defined as the arena where those events occur. We use the measurements of inch or meter to define the position of those event in that arena.
The problem Einstein with defining how energy causes a dynamic change in a spacetime environment that define "happening and becoming" or the future, may have been due to the fact that he mathematically defined it in terms of a melding of time with space which have different units. Therefore, because, in mathematics if the dimensions or units on the left and righthand sides don’t agree the equation are nonsense it is hard to imagine how the future is created in terms of spacetime. This is why he said "It appears Therefore, more natural to think of physical reality as a fourdimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a threedimensional existence.
However, the fact he found that definition unsatisfactory is evident when he said that "concepts (or causality) of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated" indicate that he was aware of this.
In other words, Einstein realized that causality of the future in terms of a dynamic process was something that must be considered.
Yet, Einstein gave us an alternative way of understanding "happening and becoming" when he defined the relationship between energy and spacetime in terms of the constant velocity of light and the equation E=mc^2 because in doing so he provided a method of converting a unit of time and energy in a spacetime environment to its equivalent unit of space 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 spacetime universe and one made up of only four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words, Einstein’s mathematics actually defined two mathematically equivalent physical models of the universe one consisting of fourdimensional spacetime and one of only four *spatial* dimensions.
In his spacetime model he mathematically defined all forms of energy including gravity and the kinetic energy of motion in terms of a curvature or displacement in the "surface" of fourdimensional spacetime manifold. However, in his equivalent model consisting of only four *spatial" dimensions he would have defined them in terms of a displacement or curvature in the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
As was mentioned earlier, it was evident Einstein realized the difficulty of deriving the future or happenings in terms of his spacetime model when he said "no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated.
However, the same is not true of the equivalent model mentioned above consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions because defining the causality of change of the future in those terms would eliminate the problem mentioned above with the incompatibility of space and time.
Yet, before we can define the future in terms of the dynamics four *spatial* dimension we must first explain how it interacts with time to cause it to dilate and shorten length of objects when it is in relative motion with respect to an observer.
For example, one can show as was mentioned earlier by using the Einstein mathematics the kinetic energy of motion can be understood in terms of a displacement in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth spatial dimension as well one in fourdimensional spacetime.
One can understand how this would effect time and the length of objects in relative motion by assuming the perspective of two "2 dimensional creatures are living on the surface of two pieces of paper resting on a desktop.
Also, assume the two creatures can view the surfaces of the other piece of paper, which are separated a pencil.
If the diameter of the pencil is increased, the curvature between the surfaces of the two pieces of paper will increase.
Each of these creatures, when viewing the other piece of paper will only perceive the twodimensional translation of the threedimensional curvature generated by the pencil.
Therefore, each will view the distance between two points on the surface of the other as shorter since they will view that distance as a twodimensional translation of the threedimensional curvature in the surface of the paper.
Similarly, because threedimensional beings could only "view" a threedimensional translation of a "curvature" or displacement in four *spatial* dimension caused by the motion of a reference frame they will measure distance or length in them as being longer than they would be if viewed as an observer who is not in relative motion to it.
The "movement" of time on both surfaces will also be affected.
Each of the twodimensional creatures mentioned earlier will view the others time as moving slower because the threedimensional curvature in the paper makes the distance between events longer than the twodimensional translation of those events. Therefore, it will take longer for events "move" through a curvature in threedimensional space relative to the time it would take for them to move through twodimensional translation on the others surface caused by that curvature.
Similarly, time will become dilated in reference frames that are in motion because the curvature generated on its threedimensional "surface" caused by its relative motion will result the distance between events to be longer than it with respect to the distances measured in reference frames observe on them assumed them to be stationary. Therefore, they will view time in a reference frame that is in motion relative to them as moving slower than if they were in that reference frame.
As show above both of these models, the one based on the physical existence of four dimensions spacetime and the existence of only four spatial dimensions make identical predictions as to the relativistic properties of space and time, therefore which one you chose to define the physical structure of our universe must be based, in part on how you view the future.
However, Einstein spacetime interpretation did not allow him to define the dynamic changes in our environment that we call the future because he mathematically defined them in terms of a melding of time with space which have different units. Therefore, he had to assume that the past present and future was locked in a block of cement.
However, as was shown above the same is not true if one interprets his equation in terms of four *spatial* dimensions because all they all have the same units.
Yet, because as was mentioned earlier both of these models are mathematically equivalent and since we cannot physically observe either a time or a fourth *spatial* dimension, we must look to the affects they would have on the ones we can observe or in this case how we perceive the future to determine which one of these physical models is correct.
In other words, if you view it as something that dictates the past and present you will probably chose his spacetime model. However, if you view the future as a dynamic interaction of the past with the present you will most likely choose the model based on only four *spatial* dimensions.
Latter Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project
The Road to  The Road to  The Road to 
28
A few years after Albert Einstein unified space and time in his (and by now very well tested!) Theory of General Relativity he applied it to the entire universe and found something remarkable. The theory predicts that the whole universe is either expanding or contracting.
Later in 1929 the astronomer Edwin Hubble measured the velocities of a large selection of galaxies and found that the majority of them were moving away from us. In other words, the universe was expanding.
However, is the universe expanding in space or is it expanding through time?
To answer this one must first define what time and space are.
Some define time 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. To physicist’s it is a measure of the relative interval between events which is measured in units of time such as seconds minutes or hours.
However, space can be defined as the arena where events occur. We use the measurements of inch or meter to define the position of those event in that arena.
As was mentioned earlier, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity mathematically define the universe in terms of a melding of time with space. However, as was mention above they are they have vastly different properties. For example, one is measure in terms of second while the other is in inches or meters.
Therefore, it is very difficult to understand how time which is measured in seconds can have a dynamic effect on space measured in meters.
To this end Marina Corts, a cosmologist from the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh came up to what has come to be called the block universe.
Basically, it asks us to imagine a regular chunk of cement. It has three dimensions but we live in four dimensions: the three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. A block universe is a fourdimensional block, but instead of being made of cement, it is made of spacetime. And all of the space and time of the Universe are there in that block."
We can’t see this block, we’re not aware of it, as we live inside the cement of spacetime. And we don’t know how big the block universe we live in is: "We don’t know if space is infinite or not. Or time – we don’t know whether it has a beginning or if it will have an end in the future. So, we don’t know if it’s a finite chunk of spacetime or an infinite chunk."
However, picture this presents a problem for cosmologists because if the merging of space and time causes it to become as ridge as a block of cement how can its spatial component be expanding.
It should be remembered only the spatial component of the universe is expanding not time.
Additionally, because Einstein defined the universe in terms of only four dimensions, one time and three spatial how can we understand its spatial expansion without adding an additional one because a spatial one cannot expand to one made up of time because, as mentioned earlier they have vastly different properties.
Yet, Einstein gave us an alternative when he defined the mathematical relationship between space and time in terms of the constant velocity of light because in doing so, he provided a method of converting a unit of time in a spacetime environment to its equivalent unit of space 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 spacetime universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.
In other words, Einstein’s mathematics actually defined two mathematically equivalent physical models of the universe one consisting of fourdimensional spacetime and one of only four spatial dimensions.
Yet, because both of these models are mathematically equivalent and since we cannot physically observe either a time or a fourth *spatial* dimension, we must look to the effects they would have on the ones we can observe to determine which one of these physical models is correct.
For example, if we were a twodimensional creature living on the surface of a balloon that was inflating, we could explain its spatial expansion by assuming we were living in an environment consisting three spatial dimensions because they have the same properties as the two dimension surface of the balloon therefore, it could expand through it. However, we could not explain it by assuming that we were living in an environment consisting of only time and the twodimensional surface of the balloon because time as mentioned earlier it does not have the properties of space and therefore could not expand in it.
Similarly, we can explain why our threedimensional world was undergoing a spatial expansion by assuming we were living in an environment or universe consisting four *spatial* dimensions because it would have the same spatial properties as the three dimension one we live in. However, we could not if we assume our universe consisted of fourdimensional spacetime because time does not have the properties of space and therefore similar to the surface of the balloon it could not expand in it.
As was mentioned earlier "A few years after Albert Einstein unified space and time (and by now very well tested! ) in his theory of General Relativity" and showed it can be "applied to the entire universe ." Therefore, he also showed that because of their mathematical equivalence, a physical model based on one unifying threedimensional space with a fourth *spatial* dimension has also been very well tested and could also be applied it to the entire universe.
However, as was shown above his physical model based on four *spatial* dimensions pass an additional test which his spacetime model cannot, that of explaining the spatial expansion of our threedimension environment.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project
The Road to  The Road to  The Road to 
The arrow of time, is the name reason given to the "oneway direction" or "asymmetry" of time by British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington in the macroscopic universe. Its direction, according to Eddington, is determined by studying the spatial organization of atoms, molecules, and bodies, and might be drawn upon a fourdimensional relativistic map of the world.
However physical processes at the microscopic level are believed to be either entirely or mostly timesymmetric: if the direction of time were to reverse, the theoretical statements that describe them would remain true. Yet as was just mentioned at the macroscopic level it appears that this is not the case.
The question as to why things appear to different on the microscopic level is an unanswered question.
Many explain the observed temporal asymmetry at the macroscopic level, the reason we see time as having a forward direction, ultimately comes down to thermodynamics, the science of heat and its relation with mechanical energy or work, and more specifically to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That laws uses the states that the entropy of a system either remains the same or increases in every process. This phenomenon is due to the extraordinarily small probability of a decrease or that a system will return to its original configuration, based on the extraordinarily larger number of microstates in systems with greater entropy. In other Entropy can decrease or a system can return to its original configuration, but for any macroscopic system, this outcome is so unlikely that it will never be observed in the future.
However, entropy can decrease somewhere, provided it increases somewhere else by at least as much. The entropy of a system decreases only when it interacts with some other system whose entropy increases in the process.
Yet, it is difficult to apply that definition to a quantum environment because SchrÃ¶dinger wave equation that quantum mechanics uses to determine the position component of a particle when observed does so in terms of a probability distribution over the entire universe. Therefore, to define an arrow of time for a quantum system in terms of entropy one must show there is a physical connection between the macroscopic spacetime environments we live in and a particles position in that probability field when it is observed.
Unfortunately, we define the spatial components of entropy in our macroscopic universe in terms of the spacetime concepts defined by Einstein. Therefore, to define the arrow of time in the probabilistic world associated quantum mechanics in terms of entropy we must show how it is physically connected to the spatial properties of the macroscopic universe defined by him.
Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of spacetime because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to unit of space. Additionally, because the velocity of light is constant, he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between the both the relativistic and physical properties of a spacetime universe and one made up of only four *spatial* dimensions.
Dong so allow will one to physically connect the probabilities associated with SchrÃ¶dinger’s wave equation to the Thermodynamic laws that governor the entropy in our macroscopic universe.
For example, the article â€œ Why is energy/mass quantized? â€ Oct 4, 2007 showed one can derive the quantum mechanical wave/particle properties of matter in terms of an energy wave on a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to fourth spatial dimension by extrapolating our understanding of a resonant structure created by a wave in a threedimensional environment.
Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a threedimensional 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 an electromagnetic wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a "surface" between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions 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 to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or "structure" to be established space.
Therefore, these oscillations in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or "structure" in fourdimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment.
In our threedimensional environment the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.
Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy quantum mechanical associates with the particle properties of matter.
Yet one can also define its boundary conditions of its resonate structure in the terms of our perceptions of a threedimensional environment.
For example, in our threedimensional world, a point on the twodimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface. However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to threedimensional space.
Similarly, an object occupying a volume of threedimensional 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.
It is the confinement of the upward and downward oscillations of an energy with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension by an observation is what defines the spatial boundaries associated with a particle in the article Why is energy/mass quantized? " Oct 4, 2007.
This shows the reason Quantum Mechanics can define matter in terms of a particle/wave duality and why it only presents its particle or position properties when it is observed is because its wave component is only confined to threedimensional space when an observation is made.
However, as mentioned earlier it also provides a way to physical connect the probabilistic environment defined by SchrÃdinger wave equation to the physicality of Einstein’s relativistic universe.
The physics of wave mechanics tell us that due to the continuous properties of the wave component associated with a quantum system it would be distributed throughout the entire "surface" a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
For example, the energy of a vibrating or oscillating ball on a rubber diaphragm would be disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of those vibrations would decrease as one move away from the focal point of the oscillations.
Similarly, if the assumption outlined above, that quantum properties of matter are a result of vibrations or oscillations in a "surface" of threedimensional space is correct those oscillations would be distributed over the entire "surface" threedimensional space while the magnitude of those vibrations would be greatest at the focal point of the oscillations and decreases as one moves away from it.
(Some may question the fact that the energy wave associated with particle would be simultaneously distributed over the entire universe. However, the relativistic properties of spacetime tell us the distance perceived by objects or particles in relative motion is dependent on their velocity which become zero at the speed of light. Therefore, from the perspective of an energy wave moving at the speed of light, the distance between all points in the universe along its velocity vector is zero. In other words, because its electromagnetic wave component of a particle is moving at the speed of light as all electromagnetic0 energy must is it would be distributed or simultaneous exists at every point in the universe along its velocity vector. There can be no other conclusion if one accepts the validity of Einstein’s theories.)
As mentioned earlier the article â€œ Why is energy/mass quantized? â€ shown a wave/particle duality of matter can be understood in terms of a resonant structure formed wave energy on the "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Yet the science of Wave Mechanics tells us 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, a particle would most probably be observed were the magnitude of the vibrations in a "surface" of a threedimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point.
This demonstrates that one can interconnect probabilities associated with SchrÃ¶dinger’s wave equation to the physicality of the Einstein’s Relativistic universe.
As was mentioned earlier the arrow of time is defined in classical system in terms of entropy or the level of randomness (or disorder) of a system and the Second law of thermodynamics which states that there is an the extraordinarily small probability that a system will return to its original configuration, based on the extraordinarily larger number of microstates in systems with greater entropy even though its.
Additionally, the above discussion also shows one can use the same definition for the arrow of time in a quantum universe as the one used in a macroscopic one because the position of a particle in a quantum can only be determine with respect to other particles in probability field Schrodinger’s equation. Therefore, due to the fact that there are infinite number of possibilities in the probabilistic universe of quantum mechanics there an extraordinarily small chance of that universe retuning to is original configuration when an observation is made in the future.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2020
Please visit our Facebook group The Road to unification of Quantum and Relativistic theories if you would like to comment or contribute to our project
The Road to
 The Road to

The Road to
