However this is in direct conflict with how physicists define it in terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension.

For example Einstein believed as the following quote demonstrates that time was a rigid physical component of a space-time environment defined by both his Special and General Theories of Relatively.

“Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.”

In other words according to Einstein the structure of space-time is ridge while the changes we perceive are merely an illusion similar to the illusion of change created in a flip book when one rapidly flips through its pages containing series of pictures that vary gradually from one page to the next.

However if one considered blocks of space-time as the pages of the flip book responsible for the illusion of change as Einstein did one still must still define the causality of the change on each page of that book which cannot be related to time if it is a ridge component of a space-time environment.

As mentioned earlier the idea of defining time terms of the physical properties of a space-time dimension conflicts with the abstract properties most associate with change.

Yet one could resolve this conflict while defining why changes occurs in each segment of a space-time environment if one can show that change and therefore time is an emergent property of the physicality most of us including physicists associate with space.  In other words if one can define the causality of change in terms of the physical properties of space then one could merge the abstract sense of order that our consciousness feels it has with its physical properties.

However to do this one must be able to understand the causes of change associated with time in terms of the perceive physical properties of space and then determine if one can integrate them into a theoretical model that is consistent with all of the other properties of that environment. 

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

The fact that the equation E=mc^2 allows us to quantitatively derive energy in a space-time environment in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is the bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of change can be derived in terms of a displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of one in a space-time manifold.

As mentioned earlier Einstein believed it is more natural to think of physical reality in terms of a four dimensional existence, instead of the evolution of a three-dimensional existence even though he did not define the causality of change in that environment.

However as was shown earlier the symmetry of his mathematics means that he not only defined that “reality” in terms of four dimensional space-time but also in four *spatial* dimensions.

This enables one to derive the causality of change most associate with time in terms of the physical properties of the spatial dimensions instead of its abstract ones.

For example one can observe how a displacement in the geometry of three-dimensional space cases change by watching water flowing over a dam.

Similarly if as was shown above one defines energy in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time as was done in the article “Defining energy” Nov 27, 2007 one can define the transfer of energy associated with change in terms of the “level’ each segment of three-dimensional of space has with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.  In other words change can be defined as an emergent property of four *spatial* dimensions because as one moves though Einstein’s space-time environment each successive section of three-dimensional space would be at a different level with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension. 

Granted due to the symmetrical nature of the arguments presented here one could argue that space is an emergent property of time.

However it is more consistent with observations of our three dimensional environment to assume that the changes most associate with time have their causality in the geometry of space because as was mentioned earlier we can see how that geometry causes change whereas the same cannot be done with respect to time because of its abstract properties.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post The casualty of time. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Einstein told us that it is made up of a dynamic balance between the properties of space and time.

For example he told us that space is a sort of multidimensional fabric, where the presence of mass causes the fabric of space-time to curve.  However he did not tell us anything about its composition.  Granted he did tell us what occurs when mass is present however he said nothing about space without mass.  In other words he simply told use how space reacts when mass is present.
However it is difficult to form a clear picture of how the physical properties of mass can interact with time because it is not perceived by most as matter or space but as an irreversible physical, chemical, and biological change in physical space.  So it is difficult to understand how mass can change time in a space-time dimension because it by definition is change.  In other words it does not make any sense to say that when mass is present in space it changes change.

Yet Einstein gave us the ability to solve this conundrum and develop more direct understand how and why the fabric of space is effected by mass when he used the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time.  This is because that provided a method of converting a unit of time associated with energy in a space-time dimension to unit of space associated with mass in four *spatial* dimensions.  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.

One of the many theoretical advantages to doing this is that it allows one to define the fabric of space in terms of physical properties of mass because it tells us why it causes the fabric of space-time to curve. For example one can see how moving a mass from one point to another physically changes the space it occupies which agrees with as mentioned earlier with what most of us perceive time to be.

In other words it tells us that mass must be an integral part of fabric of space.

However Einstein’s theory defines mass only in terms of the continuous field properties of space-time which means if one is to accept his theory one must also assume that there is continuous field of mass throughout space.  In other words it tells us that it is made up of that field.

This is true despite the fact that many believe that mass only exists in its particle or quantized form.

But observations tell a different story.

For example Louis de Broglie was the first to predict space is made up of the field properties of mass when he theorized that all particles have a wave component.  His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer.

In other words the space we associate with the particles must be composed of the field properties of mass because that is the only thing that could be responsible for the wave component of particles.  However this means the space the wave is moving through also must be made up of it to.

If this is true why then do we only observe its particle properties?

One can understand why by extrapolating the laws of governing resonance in a three-dimensional environment, as was done in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 to the field properties of the wave Davisson and Germer to a fourth *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give the continuous field properties of mass 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 three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate spatially 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 three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

Classical mechanics tells us 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 the field properties of space would be responsible for it particles properties.

Yet one can also define its boundary conditions in terms of the classical laws space and time.

For example in classical physics, a point on the two-dimensional surface of paper is confined to that surface.  However, that surface can oscillate up or down with respect to three-dimensional space. 

Similarly an object occupying a volume of three-dimensional space would be confined to it however, it could, similar to the surface of the paper oscillate “up” or “down” with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

The confinement of the “upward” and “downward” oscillations of the field properties of mass 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?“

However there are at least two reasons why we are unable to directly observe the field properties of mass. The first is because all observations require an exchange of energy between what is being observed and the observer.  However the most effective and efficient way for nature to transfer information to our instruments is, as was shown in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?“ in a resonate system made up of the field properties of mass.  Therefore in all measurements the particle properties associated with its resonant system will always be predominant over its field ones.

The second is that to directly measure a quantity there must be a physical difference between what is being measured and what is doing the measuring.  For example one cannot measure the changing level of water in a ship lock from a ship in it by measure how high it is above the surface of the water ship is floating in because it is changing at the same rate.

Similarly one cannot measure the field properties of the mass component of space because the field properties in the measuring instrument are changing at the same rate.

However we can indirectly measure how the field properties of mass interact with particles as was shown by in 1927 by Davisson and Germer observation of electron diffraction by crystals

This shows that the fabric or our cosmos is made continuous field of mass.

Unfortunately for those who believe that all mass must be contained in particles the logic for that conclusion is based purely on observations and the validly of Einstein theories.  Therefore to deny the existence of a continuous field of mass and the fact that it is the fabric of the cosmos one would have to deny the validity of Einstein theories.

It should be remember Einsteinâ€s genius allows us to choose to define all environments in either space-time or one consisting of four *spatial* dimension when he defined their geometry in terms of the constant velocity of light. This interchangeability broadens the environment encompassed by his theories by making them applicable to both the quantum and field properties of space thereby giving us a new perspective on their interactions.

Later Jeff

Copy right Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post The fabric of the cosmos appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.