Unfortunately there is absolutely no direct observational or experiment evidence supporting its physicality. 

In fact one of the most persistent observations regarding time is that it is not directly perceived in terms of a physical entity such as matter or space but only as a measure of an irreversible physical, chemical, or biological change in a physical system.

However this suggests as was shown in the article “Defining what time is.” Sept 20, 2007 time may only be a non-physical measurement of the sequential ordering of a physical, chemical, or biological change in space similar how a unit of length is a non-physical measure of a change in the ordering of the position of an object in space. This is because similar to time, length is not perceived as matter or space but only as a non-physical measure of where an object is located with respect to a given point in space.

Yet this appears to contradict the assumption that time or a space-time dimension is or has the properties of a physical entity because as mentioned earlier most of us do not perceived it as having the physical properties of matter or space.

However, what is even more damaging to the concept that it has physical properties is that they are not required to define relativistic properties of our universe as many physics seem to think.

This is because Einstein gave us a way of converting a unit of time in a space-time dimension to unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions when he used the constant velocity of light to define its geometric properties.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

However using Einstein’s equations as is suggested above to redefine the universe in terms of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimension space-time would allow one to understand its relativistic properties in terms of the observable properties of the spatial dimensions while maintaining the same quantitative predictive powers as those associated with a space-time dimension because as mentioned earlier there is a one to one correspondence between them.

For example  the article “Embedded dimensions” Oct 22, 2007 showed that one can derived all forms of energy including gravitational and kinetic in terms of a displacement or curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension and why one must assume that kinetic energy is a result of an oppositely directed displacement in its “surface” than the one associated with gravity.

The conclusion that the causality of kinetic energy is a result of an oppositely directed displacement in a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to the one associated with gravity is based on the observation that they are oppositely directed.  For example, the kinetic energy of an orbiting satellite is oppositely directed with respect to the gravitational energy associated with the planet it is orbiting.  Therefore, if one defines gravity in terms of a “depression” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension one should define kinetic energy in terms of a oppositely directed “elevation” in that “surface”.

However this means according the definitions given in the article “Embedded dimensions” the total energy/mass of an object would be equal to the sum of the displacements of a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold caused by the rest mass of an object and that caused by its relative velocity.

Therefore, the energy/mass of an object would be dependent on its relative motion because one must add the energy of its motion to its rest energy/mass.

This defines the mechanism responsible for why the energy/mass of an object increases when viewed by an observer who is in relative motion to it in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

The following analogy can be used to understand and define the relativistic properties length and time

Assume that 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 two-dimensional translation of the three-dimensional 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 two-dimensional translation of a three-dimensional curvature in the surface of the paper and each will measure the distance between them on their piece of paper as being longer then they would if they viewed it on the other piece.

Similarly, because three-dimensional beings could only “view” a three-dimensional 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 two dimensional creatures mentioned earlier will view the others “time” as moving slower because the three-dimensional curvature in the paper makes the distance between events longer than the two dimensional translation of those events.  Therefore, it will take longer for events “move” through the curvature in three-dimensional space relative to the time it would take for them to move along two dimension translation of that surface.

Earlier it was mentioned that the magnitude of the displacement or “curvature” an object generates in a fourth *spatial* dimension is dependent on its velocity.

However as mentioned earlier, we have defined time as only being the measure or the “distance between” the sequential ordering of the causality of an event.

Therefore time will become dilated in reference frames that are in motion because of the curvature generated in three-dimensional space by its relative motion, three-dimensional beings in that reference frame will view the distance between events to be longer in it than it would if they were in motion relative to it.  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 because events in those reference frames will have a greater separation.

The velocity of light is constant despite the relative motion of an observer because the foreshortening or shortening of the length or distance the light travels is proportional to the motion of the observer.  Therefore, the velocity of light will be constant in all reference frames despite the relative velocities of the observers to those reference frames because velocity is defined in terms of distance divided by time.

It should be remember this scenario applies to all forms of energy including gravitational because, as the article “Embedded dimensions” Oct. 22, 2007 showed, three-dimensional beings perceive energy in terms of the magnitude of a “curvature” in “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The Lorentz transformations derived from this theoretical model will take on the same form as the Lorentz transformations derived from Relativity.

This is because this theoretical model postulates that a displacement or curvature in “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold, with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by the gravitational or kinetic energy of an object is proportional to the velocity of light.

Therefore, because both Relativity and the above mechanism predict a physical shortening of length and a slowing of time are related to the geometry of space, the form of the Lorentz transformations associated with the foreshortening length and slowing of time will be identical for both of these models.

However, this theoretical model differs from that of Relativity’s in that it defines the magnitude of a foreshortening of length and a slowing or dilation of time in terms of a “curvature” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of curvature in four dimensional space-time manifold.

As mentioned earlier the article “Defining energy” derived the mechanism responsible for gravity in terms of a “curvature” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it was shown earlier that a curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimension space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimension was responsible for length foreshortening and time dilation.

Therefore, because both gravitational and the kinetic energy of relative motion are derived from a common “curvature” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension they will have a similar effect on physical properties of length and time.

This means both Relativity and this paper predict an observer in a gravitational field will measure the length of an object to be shorter and passage of time to be slower with respect to an observer who is located outside of a gravitational field.

However, as mentioned earlier this paper defines this shortening of length and slowing of time in a gravitational field in terms of four *spatial* dimension instead of four-dimensional space-time manifold.

The “relative” characteristics of a “curvature” in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension associated with kinetic and gravitational energy would also make it impossible for an observer to determine if an acceleration is caused by gravitational or kinetic energy such as that from an exhaust of a rockets engine.

This is because the mechanism defined above indicates the magnitude of a force associated with both gravitational and kinetic energy is related to the absolute magnitude of a “curvature” a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Therefore, because a three-dimensional observer can only observe the three-dimensional effects of a curvature in four *spatial* dimensions he or she could not determine whether he or she is in a gravitational field or an accelerated reference frame.

This means the concepts contained in this article would make identical qualitative and quantitative and predictions with respect to the relativistic properties of space and time and the inability to determine the casualty of acceleration in terms of the physical properties of four *spatial* dimensions instead of four dimensional space-time because they are based on the analytical and qualitative properties of Einstein’s experimentally verified equation E=mc^2.

As mentioned earlier the primary reason why most scientist assume the physicality of time or a space-time dimension is because the foundation of modern cosmology is based on the physical existence of time or Einstein’s space-time dimension.

Yet as this article shows one can make the same quantitative and qualitative predictions regarding them by assuming they are caused by a physical interaction between the third and fourth *spatial* dimension and not one made up of time.

However this article also suggests the reason why scientists are unable physically observe time or a space-time dimension is because its existence is based on the illusion that it is responsible for the relativistic properties of space, time and energy/mass.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post The illusion that is time. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Later he talks about the ratio of gravitational attraction to electrical repulsions:

“The ratio of the gravitational attraction to electrical repulsions is given by a number with 42 digits tailing off.  (The exact number was given in a diagram as Gravitation attraction / Electrical repulsion = 1/(4.17 X 10^42) Now therein lies a very deep mystery.  Where could such a tremendous number come from?  If you ever had a theory, from which both of these things are to come how could they come in such disproportion?  What equation has a solution which has for two kinds of forces an attraction and repulsion with that fantastic ratio.”

However, one may be able to show that gravity and electricity are different aspect of the same thing and derive “this fantastic ratio” if one extrapolates the laws of classical physics in a three-dimensional environment to a fourth *spatial* dimension as done in this blog.

Because as the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can derive the quantum mechanical properties of electrical forces by extrapolating the laws governing resonance in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

There are four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical Newtonian environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the “surface” of three-dimensional space (the substance) the ability to oscillate spatially 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 three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

Therefore, these bi-directional oscillations in a “surface” of a three dimensional space would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in space.

Observations of a three-dimensional environment show us 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 incremental or discreet values associated a fundamental or a harmonic of the fundamental frequency of its environment.

This shows that one can understand the origins of the quantum mechanical properties of an electromagnetic wave in terms of classical mechanics if one assumes that it is a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth “spatial” dimension.

However as the article “The Photon: a matter wave?” Oct. 1, 2007 one can also understand the origins electrical forces and their quantum mechanical properties by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to  fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly a wave on the two-dimensional surface of water causes a point on that surface to be become displaced or rise above or below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present. A force will be developed by the differential displacement of the surfaces, which will result in the elevated and depressed portions of the water moving towards or become “attracted” to each other and the surface of the water.

Similarly a matter wave on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension would cause a point on that “surface” to become displaced or rise above and below the equilibrium point that existed before the wave was present.

Therefore, classical wave mechanics, if extrapolated to four *spatial* dimensions tells us a force would be developed by the differential displacements caused by a matter wave moving on a “surface” of three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension which will result in its elevated and depressed portions moving towards or become “attracted” to each other.

This would define the causality of the attractive forces of unlike charges associated with the electromagnetic wave component of a photon because it tells us a force would be developed by a differential displacement of a point on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However, it also provides a classical mechanism for understanding why similar charges repel each other 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 three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension caused by two similar charges will be greater than that caused by a single one. Therefore, similar charges will repel each other because the magnitude of the force resisting the displacement will be greater for two similar charges than it would be for a single charge.

One can define the causality of electrical component of an electromagnetic wave in terms of the energy associated with the “peaks” and “troughs” that is directed perpendicular to its velocity vector while its magnetic component would be associated with the horizontal force developed by that perpendicular displacement.

However, Classical Mechanics tells us a horizontal force will be developed by that perpendicular or vertical displacement which will always be 90 degrees out of phase with it. This force is called magnetism.

This is analogous to how the vertical force pushing up of on mountain also generates a horizontal force, which pulls matter horizontally towards from the apex of that displacement.

This shows how one can understand electric and magnetic forces by extrapolating laws of classical mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The reason why electromagnetic forces are quantized is because as mentioned earlier its energy is propagated through space in quantized resonant systems defined in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?”

However as the article “Gravity in four *spatial* dimensions” Dec. 15, 2007 showed one also can derive gravitational forces in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension by extrapolating the laws of classical physics in a three-dimensional environment to a fourth “spatial” dimension

One can understand how by comparing the forces on objects would experience in four *spatial* dimensions to those experienced by a marble on a rubber diaphragm with a rod pushing down it.

The surface of the diaphragm will represent the “surface” of three-dimensional space the marble, the energy/mass of an object and the rod will represent the “W” axis of a fourth *spatial* dimension.

(The “W” axis of the fourth *spatial* dimension was defined in the article “Embedded dimensions Oct. 27, 2007″)

If the end of the rod is orientated perpendicular to the “surface” of the diaphragm and is allowed to touch it without putting any pressure on it, the surface of the diaphragm will remain flat. The marble on the flat diaphragm would not move.

However, if pressure is applied to the rod, the “surface” of the diaphragm will become displaced and will no longer be perpendicular to the rod.

Gravitational forces will then have a tangential component along the displacement in the “surface” of the rubber diaphragm. The tangential component of the gravitational force directed along the “surface” of the diaphragm will cause the marble to move towards the apex of the depression

Similarly objects interacting with a displacement in “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension will experience a differential force directed towards the apex of that curvature. This force is called gravity.

(This curvature is analogous to the space-time curvature or displacement Einstein postulated is responsible for gravity.)

This would make gravitational and electrical forces different aspects of the same thing because it defines both in terms of the physical properties of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a four *spatial* dimensions.

However, they also share a common property defined by the E=mc^2 because it defines the ratio of all forms of energy including electrical to the gravitational energy contained in mass.

If true one should be able to define a mechanism responsible for why “The ratio of the gravitational attraction to electrical repulsions is given by a number with 42 digits tailing off” in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the fact that they are both have a common origin in a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Solving the equation E=m*c^2 for “m” gives m=E/c^2. This would define the ratio of electrical to its gravitational energy/mass equivalent because as mentioned earlier it defines the ratio of electrical to the gravitational energy associated with mass.

The law of gravitation states that the forces between two objects is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them or m x m/d^2

If one then substitutes E/c^2 for “m” in that equation one gets F=(E/c^2)^2/r^2.  This would define the ratio of the attractive properties of gravity to the repulsive properties of electrical energy in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

Using 3.0 x 10^10 cm/sec for the speed of light (c) and substituting we obtain for the ratio of electrical to gravitation forces to be F=E/(3.010^10 cm/sec)^4/r^2 or F=E/(8.1X 10^41 cm/sec).

This value represents the ratio of “Gravitation attraction / Electrical repulsion” Richard Feynman was referring to in the earlier quote from his book “The Character of Physical Laws” because it numerically defines the ratio of gravitational to electrical forces.

The theoretical result of 1/8.1 X 10^41 differs from the experimental value of 1/(4.17 X 10^42) because the equation of E=mc^2 that defines the ratio between gravitational and electrical energy tells us that some of the electrical energy in a system is derived from its mass or gravitational component.  Therefore, one must subtract the quantity of the gravitational equivalent of the electrical forces associated with that mass from the above derived value to obtain the experimental value.

Therefore it appears one can solved the “very deep mystery” as to why the inverse square law can be applied to both gravitational and electric forces by “making electricity and gravity different aspects the same thing” if one assume as we have done they are both caused by a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension and answers Mr. Feynman’s question as to “how could they (gravitational and electrical forces) come in such disproportion”.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post Linking gravitational and electrical forces appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

One is that it could allow for the development of a theoretical link between gravity, mass and inertia in terms of interactions between a third and fourth *spatial* dimension.

Newton, in his laws of motion defined how the inertia of an object interacts with its environment and the effect forces have on them.  However, he was unable to define the causality of gravity or inertia.

Einstein was able to define the causality of gravity and the relativistic properties of motion in terms of a four-dimensional space-time manifold but he was unable to define the causality of inertia. 

However, as mentioned earlier one can derive the causality of both if one redefines Einstein’s space-time universe in terms of four *spatial* dimension.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because that provided a method of converting a unit of space-time associated with energy to unit of space associated with position.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

This was the basis for, as was done in the article  “Defining energy” Nov. 26, 2007 for defining all forms of energy including inertia or momentum in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. 

While the article “The “Relativity” of four spatial dimensions” Dec. 01, 2007 showed that one can derive the causality of all forces or accelerations including gravitational in terms of an interaction of a mass with the slope of a curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space.  Additionally it was shown the magnitude of gravitational mass was directly proportional to the magnitude of the displacement caused by that curvature.

(This curvature is analogous to a curvature in a four-dimensional space-time manifold Einstein theorized was the causality of gravitational accelerations.)

Therefore, according to the theoretical concepts presented in those articles the magnitude of the momentum of an object would be defined by the sum of two components.  The first would be the displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space associated with the rest mass of an object, whose magnitude as the article “The “Relativity” of four spatial dimensions” Dec. 01, 2007 showed is defined by the magnitude of that mass.  While second would be the magnitude of a displacement in that “surface” that the article “Defining energy” Nov. 26, 2007 associated with ita momentum of its relative motion.  (The momentum of an object at rest with respect to other objects is zero so the displacement of three-dimensional space with respect to those objects would also be zero.)

In other words to define the total energy of an object or particle in motion one would have to add the displacements in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold associated with its rest mass to that associated with its relative motion.

However the article “Defining energy” Nov. 26, 2007 also derives the causality of inertia in terms of the constant geometric displacement of a “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to four *spatial* dimension associated while showing why there will be a 1 to 1 correspondence between it and the curvature in space required to make a unit change in its displacement with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

In other words it derives the causality of Newton’s law of inertia or the fact that “Every body remains in a state of rest or constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force” in terms of a linear displacement in a “surface” of a three dimension space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension because that displacement would remain unchanged unless in interacted the curvature associated with an accelerative force defined in the “The “Relativity” of four spatial dimensions” Dec. 01, 2007

Additionally because as that article showed there is a one to one correspondence between the rest mass or inertia of an object and the magnitude of the curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space associated with its gravitational component the relative accelerations of all objects will be the same in all gravitational fields.

This defines a causal link between the inertia, mass and gravity in terms of a geometric interaction between the third and a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2010

The post Inertial geometry What is it? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.