Deriving spacetime in four-dimensional Euclidean space without time and dynamics

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Ans, Dec 15, 2018.

1. AnsRegistered Member

Messages:
35
Is time exists on fundamental level or is it emergent phenomena? Is dynamics exists on fundamental level or is it emergent phenomena?

Special and general theories of relativity shows that there is dependency between time, matter and space. If both time and dynamic are not exists on fundamental level, it means also that matter and space, observable by us, are also not fundamental and not exists on fundamental level.

We observe effects of time and dynamics each second. How to build model where time with dynamics, matter and observable by us space absent on fundamental level?

I wrote article with model of nature where both time and dynamics are not exists on fundamental level. In that article I show how to derive curved spacetime with time and dynamics from Euclidean space without time and dynamics. In that article was shown that the model contains both special and general theories of relativity as its consequences. Was shown what is gravitation, was shown that the gravitation is universal and interacts with all other fields, and its speed equal to speed of light.
There is no even one equation in the article, all the consequences are quite simply arise and not requires math to see them. However, the model, in order to derive spacetime from space without time and dynamics, has to use subjective idealism. I think it is one only way how it can be done, usage of realism would require some dynamics on microlevel, like in LQG.

Article can be read here: http://vixra.org/abs/1812.0157

Are any obvious flaws and problems in proposed model?

Messages:
27,543
vixra???

In summing, philosophical claptrap!

5. AnsRegistered Member

Messages:
35
If some model allows to make predictions, the model cannot be philosophical. One of consequences of my model - absense of quant of gravity. So, it is not philosophy.
It contains area, typically belonging to philosophy. However, if the model will be confirmed, it means related areas of philosophy will become part of science.

In the model, I consider what would be properties of physical laws if time and dynamic is not some fundamantal phenomena, but emergent. In the model, time is distance in some fundamenal space. The space have no preferred direction. Space, observable by us, is 3 dimensional surface in the fundamental space. All events on one surface happens at same time. Movement from one inertial frame of references to another is rotation of surface. As result, it means after rotation events, which were previously at same time, will happen at different time. Also, because in fundamental space there is no preferred direction, it means all laws of physics should be same for all directions. So, if there is maximum speed of interaction, rotation of surface would not affect it, the speed should be same in all framces of references.
Next, if surface have curvature, it is equal to rotation of surface. Rotation of surface is change of speed. So, presense of curvature is equal to acceleration. As result, strong equivalce principle of gravity and acceleration arise in the model.
Similar, but a bit more complex, about universality of gravitation, why gravitation should not affect itself (no part from gravity in tensor of energy-impulse) and why it should have same speed as speed of light.

7. Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
WOW

How can so many words be assembled and in essence say nothing?

There has to be a knack

Bed time here

Anybody up to the challenge of reassembling the above post into something readable AND makes sense

Even one would be appreciated

Night night

8. AnsRegistered Member

Messages:
35
Of course it is not easy for understanding, because I propose completely new model of Nature.
Currently, there are two main models: one with aether and another with vacuum and relativism. Theories with aether encountered lots of problems which looks unresolvable, so there is practically only one model to build physical theories, with vacuum and relativism.
I propose third model, completely different from both models mentioned above. And, in article, I have shown that the model contains special and general relativity, and it explains gravity and its properties. One of predictions of the model - absense of quant of gravity.

Also, what I wrote in the forum is only very compressed description of article. Detailed explanation of the model is in article.

9. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986

You see, the problem with non-peer-reviewed text is that experts in the field haven't reviewed it. If you had gone through that process, they would have pointed out that your proposed model isn't actually new:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line#World_lines_as_a_tool_to_describe_events

It's been around for decades. So no, I see no obvious flaws and problems with your proposed model, except that it isn't yours.

Write4U and Michael 345 like this.
10. Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077
Sorry but a compressed description of rubbish (my opinion - perhaps others might see it as breakthrough insight), but as I see the compressor view as rubbish I will not view the expanded article

11. Michael 345New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldlValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,077

Had a brief look. Get the general concept but not entirely understanding to follow up in any sort of comment or debate

Still, been around for decades eh

Like me, but this is the first I have heard of it

How many more suprises are there out there for me?

12. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Hopefully enough to keep you entertained during the ride, but not too many to befuddle you. Also, may they be predominately pleasant ones!

13. AnsRegistered Member

Messages:
35
If you read - did you notice that in my model both time and dynamic on fundamental level is absent?

Actually, just two weeks ago got rejection on bigger article with theory based on the model. Reviewer wrote that scalar fields have no enough degrees of freedom to model all tensor and vector properties of matter. It looks correct, in any good book on quantum field theory there is section which show it. However, scalar field in my theory have completely different properties than scalar field considered in such books. It is continuous, have no dynamic and its area of definition is different. So seems as reviewer simply read that article very briefly without looking into details.
However, he mentioned in review that the model is very original.
And, by the way, I have MSc in physics.
Article from my first post is currently in one of journals, with impact factor near 1. Current state "editor assigned", was set on Dec 7.

You pointing to well known for me model.
May you show where that model says that time and dynamic absent on fundamental level?
May you show where that model says that it is based on Euclidean space? If someone not knows, for SR it is based on Minkowski spacetime with -1, 1, 1, 1 metric. Similar, but a bit more complex with GR and Riemannian geometry.
May you show where that model resolve fine tuning problem? My model propose resolution to it.

So, my model and model of SR and GR are two completely different models.

14. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Yes, just like it is in the model proposed decades ago.

Then submit it to a respectable journal instead; the reviewers used by the top journals do practice due diligence.

So, he didn't look at your ideas in details, but he was able to state it is very original?

Well, he was at least wrong about the model being original, and you just accused him of not even looking at your ideas in detail, so I'm not so sure how heavily I would weigh that reviewer's opinion?

And who says I haven't?

So it's not published yet?

It's fundamental to the model itself; if you can't see that, you haven't understood the model.

The model doesn't necessarily restrict itself to Euclidean space, but you can easily base it in that, sure.

Or 1, -1, -1, -1; it depends on your convention.

It doesn't concern itself with it, so that's neither here nor there.

Well, good. One more alternative is always welcome.

And I never claimed otherwise, so I don't know why you'd bring that up?

15. AnsRegistered Member

Messages:
35
If you insist that my model similar to some other model proposed decades ago, may you show the model?
Note - such model should contains only spatial dimensions on fundamental level. If in some model exists time dimension with properties different from spatial, such model different from my model. My model contains only spatial dimensions.

That journal have impact factor 0.8. It is not top journal, but not a junk, quite respectable.

About he was wrong about the model being original - you have not shown yet similar model existing for decades.
As for weigh of that reviewer's opinion - the article can be considered without taking it into account, I mentioned it mostly to say that the model was actually reviewed. Quaility of review is separate question.

I mentioned that I have MSc in physics to not see school level arguments, so I not said anything about someone else.

No, as I wrote it is with editors, not even sent to review yet.

Model with world lines from SR/GR contains time dimension, unlike my model. If you can't see that, you haven't understood the model.

Wow. May you show how to do it? And, by the way, Minkowski space is not Euclidean space.

Hmm. In my model there is solution to fine tuning problem. In model with world lines it is absent. It is another big difference.

You wrote that it is not new model, it is known for decades.

16. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
I don't know its name, but you just said you are this other model is well known to you, so why don't you?

So your model uses a 1, 1, 1, 1 (or -1, -1, -1, -1) metric? In that case, the model doesn't reflect reality. However, if you say that time is some emergent property of your model, then you can't label dimensions spatial/temporal at the fundamental level, because those words have lost their meaning.

Well, if they use reviewers as bad as you seems to suggest yours was, then it can't be "quite respectable".

Erm, you just said you knew that model well, so you've already admitted its prior existence. Perhaps it wasn't decades, but it's clear it was known before you published yours.

It was reviewed and rejected. You claim to hold an MSc: what does your training say about rejected scientific articles? Can the fact they have been rejected be seen as a positive when it comes to their scientific respectability?

Ah, I understand. Unfortunately, there aren't too many people on this forum with MSc-level knowledge of (fundamental) physics, so don't expect too many replies.

So it's not "in one of journals", as you wrote? Perhaps a language barrier?

The model I linked to isn't necessarily based on SR/GR. For example, it works fine with Newtonian physics too. If you can't see that, you haven't understood the model.

It's trivial. If you can't see that, you haven't understood the model.

I know that, and I never claimed otherwise.

False. The model I pointed to does not concern itself with it. It's not absent, and solutions can be added just fine. That your model addresses it is nice, but doesn't somehow invalide the model I pointed to.

But I didn't write anything about any "model of SR and GR"; that was you. Your response was completely irrelevant to what I wrote, and your response here doesn't address that at all, so it's once again irrelevant to what I said.

17. AnsRegistered Member

Messages:
35
It was you who wrote link to wiki with topic about world lines and said my model is not new and known for decades. And yes, the world lines and entire SR is well known to me. GR is also known to me, I had courses about GR in university.

Spatial fully reflects properties of fundamental space in my model. As I already wrote, time and dynamic is absent on fundamental level in my model.

Hmm. About two years ago I got rejection in European Physical Journal C. What do you think, is it respectable journal?
Reviewer found some errors in my submitted article. Errors were not critical, I think, but it does not matter. After finding the errors, it seems as he went to quick look mode, and wrote very interesting error. He wrote that because of my equation "L=0", no solution can be possible because lagrangian is always zero. What is funny is my article not contains any mentioning of any lagrangian, and the equation had completely different meaning, letter "L" was not about lagrangian, and it was explained prior to the equation.
Would you name "European Physical Journal C" as not respectable? I would not.

May you point to the model? So far, you provided link to wiki, article with world lines. And yes, it is well known to me. And, as I wrote, it has no relation to my model.

Rejections not add value to articles, but it not means article is wrong. It is not uncommon that article was published after many rejections.

Yes, seems as I incorrectly wrote. It is was submiited to one of journals and currently is with editors.

Model with world lines? Yes, it works well with Newtonian physics too. And, what you trying to prove?

Use something like (i*t, x, y, z) ?
It is not solution, time dimesion still have properties different from spatial.

I also not wrote anything that the model with world lines is invalide. I wrote only it is different than my model. If my model will be confirmed, that model with world lines need to be significantly modified.

Ok, seems as I lost point what you trying to say. So far, as I understood, you said what my model is not original and similar to well known for decades model from SR with world lines.
May you again formalute your statement?

18. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Worldlines are not a SR or GR exclusive thing, so the connection you are making is yours, not mine.

You have failed to address my point. Is your model using a 1, 1, 1, 1 (or -1, -1, -1, -1) metric? If not, how can you meaningfully say the dimensions used are spatial?

So fix any valid criticisms that were pointed out, see if you can take away any unclarities that the reviewer stumbled on, and submit it to another journal? Two years ago you were (apparently) very close to publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal, and now you are posting links to Vixra on internet forums. Don't you think that steep decline is a sign of something?

If it's very well known to you, why do you want a link to it? I fail to see the purpose of that. Also, what's wrong with the link I already posted? Clearly, it was enough for you to realize I was right when I pointed out you didn't come up with this model first.

But it's not very common either.

OK, good. Then why didn't you wait until that process finished, and are you now posting links on internet forums? Wouldn't it make a heck of a lot more sense to wait until your article got published, and then engage with the actual scientific community?

I have just proved that you are the one constantly bringing up SR and GR when we are talking about this model, and that thus all your arguments about them are totally irrelevant.

Note that you are the one introducing imaginary time, not me.

So you introduced something, only to immediately reject it in the next sentence. Good, glad you figured that out yourself.

It fully matches the "model"-section of your Vixra-text, which has always been my point. It's not something you first came up with at all.

Not really, as your "model"-section of your Vixra-text matches it. If significant modifications would be required, you've just stated that your own text is internally inconsistent.

It's not that many posts; read them back to refresh your memory. My point was that your model matches a previously known model, and you then irrelevantly started talking about SR and GR.

Correct.

False; once again, you are the one needlessly bringing up SR.

Sure. You asked us to give our opinion about the model in your Vixra-text, so I read the "model"-section of your Vixra-text. What is described in there is nothing new or groundbreaking, and has been known and employed for decades. So I concluded with: "I see no obvious flaws and problems with your proposed model, except that it isn't yours."

(Notice especially how at no point I brought up SR or GR, or stated anything directly related to them.)

19. AnsRegistered Member

Messages:
35
Ok, understood your statement. However, usage of world lines requires to use some spacetime theory. It can be Newtonian, or Einstein or someone else. Model with world lines without underlying spacetime theory can not be used.

My model use (1, 1, 1, 1) metric. No time, no dynamic, only spatial dimensions. All dimensions have exactly same properties.

Two years ago that article was also posted on vixra. Since that time, I significantly improved my theory. As for publication - I decided to try to publish it in two pieces. First I want to try to publish model only, link in first post is to the article. It not contains any equations and, at same time and in my opinion, it have full scientific rigor and it shows that the model have new predictions.

It is easy to answer. I expect rejection because I use subjective idealism in my model. All current physical theories are build on realism. Most close to my vision of Nature was J. Wheeler with his conception of self observing Universe, but my ideas goes much far. In my model, space, time and matter objectively not exists, they exists only subjectively and is a product of mind. Mind also is not fundamental, it is epiphenomenon build on space without time and dynamic.

Ok, However, it is known what Newtonian mechanics is not correct, especially at big velocities. So, it is necessary to consider SR and GR when talk about world lines.

... skipped some text which is similar to below
Usage of world lines requires to use some spacetime theory. It can be Newtonian, or Einstein or someone else. Model with world lines without underlying spacetime theory can not be used. So, SR or GR or Newtonian absolute space and time have to be used to be able to use model with world lines.
My model is spacetime theory. It use world lines (I named it lines of evolution because they have a bit different meaning than world lines).
All currently existing spacetime theories are build around events. My model is not buil around events. It allows for some events exists in one frame of reference and not exists in another frame of reference. For world lines, it is prohibited. If some event happened in one frame of references, it should happen in all other frames of reference. There is no such requirement in my model.

And also. In my model, I shown why maximum speed of interaction should be same in all frames of references. Do you agree with how the conclusion was derived? I shown that gravity is universal force, it should interact with all other fields, strong equivalence principle was derived, and was shown that gravity should have speed equal to speed of light.
If my model is same as some existing model, may you show where that model derive same?

20. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Your point being? Are you saying your ideas are incompatible with the concept of spacetime? Because if you are you're arguing that your own ideas are incompatible with measurable reality.

Great! Having such a theory that still described reality accurately would be a great step forward. I'm looking forward to the publication of your article in a respected peer-reviewed journal!

Demonstrably false. From the Vixra-page:
"Submission history
[v1] 2018-12-08 09:23:12"

The word you are looking for is "qualitative".

Also, you might want to read up on how to do science effectively, because this sure isn't the most efficient way to go about it. You should publish all your equations together with your ideas; how else are scientists going to be able to assess their worth?

So you're mixing philosophy into your scientific work? Yes, I can understand why physics (= scientific) journals would reject that.

Also, this means you were wrong, doesn't it? Because your text was rejected for other reasons, as you stated yourself.

Then you are no longer doing physics. You should submit your work to a philosophy journal instead.

So, in order to warrant your irrelevant bringing-up of SR and GR, you are now irrelevantly bringing up big velocities? At no point have I mentioned or even said anything remotely connected to big velocities, so once again you are the one bringing up irrelevancies. Also, you are wrong: worldlines do not required (a proper description of) big velocities.

Now you are being incoherent. You cannot use worldlines in models with worldlines without underlying spacetime theory? Yes, you can: the model has worldlines, so you can use worldlines!

It's not restricted to just those though.

Another incoherency! It uses worldlines, but it doesn't. If they are not worldlines, and you don't call them worldlines, then your model doesn't use worldlines, period.

This is not what is described in the "model"-section of your Vixra-text. Are you sure you are talking about what you linked in your first post?

Note that this has not been observed to occur in reality.

I'm not sure that it is?

Erm, are you adding SR to the mix again?

It's also not a requirement in SR; it's rather a conclusion.

I have no clue; I haven't read that part of your Vixra-text.

I never claimed that part of your text was the same as some existing model?

21. NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
It seems it's called the "block universe", and that Einstein himself was already talking about it. So that "several decades"-statement of mine wasn't wrong.

22. AnsRegistered Member

Messages:
35
I saying that world lines is conception, used by spacetime theories. Without context of some spacetime theory, it have no meaning.

I am talking about different article. As I wrote, article being discussed in the topic was written recently based on model from previous articles.

I have such article with equations, but I have impression it would be easier to publish it in two parts. First article with model only, second article with full theory and with equations.

No, I disagree here. If something allows to make observable predictions, if it is falsifiable - it is not philosophy, it is science. If my model will be confirmed in future, it means that related areas of philosophy will become part of science.

Again, I wrote not one and not even two articles. Actually, some articles were published in respectable journals. like PhysLetters. However, it was during my postgraduate education, and it was "normal science". Currently, physics is hobby for me, and I not interested in doing normal science, only interested in "revolutionary science" because it is more entertaining for me.

If something allows to make observable predictions, if it is falsifiable - it is not philosophy, it is science. If my model will be confirmed in future, it means that related areas of philosophy will become part of science.

Searched in my article for "world line" and "worldline". Not found anything. Where you found it?

Yes. It was not directly written in this article, however it is consequence of the model. The model contains some properties. Later, in article, the properties are analyzed and some results appears from the model.

I know. There is problem here. According to my model, it cannot be observed in reality. Long explanation for it. So, existence of such cases can be verified only indirectly.

You again trying to use world lines without context of underlying theory. In different theories, they have a bit different behavior.

Same as above.

Agree here. But there is no such conclusion in my model.

If model is same, in such case all consequences also should be same.

23. AnsRegistered Member

Messages:
35
Block unverse says what past and present exists and future does not exists. In my model, past, present and future exists. So it is not same as block universe. It is more close to eternalism.