mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

	Time, Space and Gravity

*Making Sense of Time, Space and Gravity***

*   An epistemological analysis of /accepted/ observations and formulae
leads to the conclusion that /the time metric is quantized./ On this
view E=MC^2 is a particular case of E=MV^2 and the ubiquitous
significance of /C/ derives from it being the internal rate of the time
quanta?s cycle of formation and collapse. This view is either consistent
with, or even the only logical explanation of, puzzling but established
observations. It is shown that quantum indeterminacy can be fully
accounted for by this assumption, and suggests why wave mechanical
calculations are so successful.  This hypothesis actually /predicts/ the
startling discovery that the universe is expanding more rapidly now than
in the past, and accounts for the observed structure at cosmic scale.
Perhaps the greatest significance of this view is that it /offers a
physically plausible hypothesis for the origin of gravitational effects/
at the quantum scale.***

The predictions made by the algorithms of quantum mechanics and
general relativity correspond to the relevant observations. The problem
is that neither theory explains, and neither has borne fruit! By the
latter it is meant that general relativity, after eighty years, has not
led to an explanation of gravity (as distinguished from a description)
nor has quantum mechanics elucidated the derivation of its arbitrary
parameters. There is a profound lack of understanding with regard to
time, which is particularly evident in theoretical time symmetry as
opposed to its observed irreversibility. Moreover, time?s conflation
with the ?speed of light?, and */C/* with aging, has hitherto been as
inexplicable as why space and time are unified. Even the possibility of
time-travel into the past is said to be consistent with current theory,
which is a reductio ad absurdem of the theoretical structure that
?allows? it.

Consider a luminous object, a billion light-years away, of which we
have an observational record. If we were miraculously transported to the
present location of the object we would not expect to see the object as
we had observed it. We would expect to find the new object(s) it had
evolved into over a billion years. By extension we realize that each new
increment of time is associated with its physical state of the universe.
With the passage of one time quanta a new physical state will have
evolved. The new state will incorporate all the conserved observables:
nothing will be left behind. Old space is as ?gone? as the past, and new
space-time is all that there ever is. At each discrete instant there is
only the newly evolved state in the present time. We recognize
intuitively that there is no universe full of mass-energy being
abandoned with the passage of its associated time! Because the formation
of space as a consequence of time is the manifestation of existence, it
constrains all processes. Nothing can ?get ahead? of time and enter the
future: we can only encounter the future as it becomes our present.
There can be no pre-existent future in our space-time, simply because
time has not yet brought it into being, nor have the causal processes
created the observables.

We use the word ?time? to mean or measure a great variety of
things. We know what we signify by these instrumental uses, and some of
them are defined in ways that help express our understanding. But when
we talk about time, it is important that we keep in mind which element
of the concept is meant. The hypothesis expressed here has to do with
the existential time that is the enabling cause of spatial
manifestation; it is a part of the union that is called space-time, but,
on this view, that term can?t mean exactly what it does in the technical
jargon of relativists. The flow of the eternal present (which passes at
the observed clock-rate) is ?sensible? time, and I assert that flow is
quantized. By that I mean time manifests in discrete intervals of
duration, or quanta. I have called the cyclic process, which interrupts
that sensible flow, the time metric. One needs to make a conceptual
distinction between this cyclic process and ?duration?, or experimental
time. The time metric has the characteristic internal rate of */C/*, in
contrast to the clock-rate of sensible time, meaning that the formation
and collapse of space in each time quanta occurs at */C/*. The
fundamental constraint this rate imposes on all physical phenomena is
the reason for */C/* ?s ubiquity as a natural constant.

What reasons are there to assert that the flow of sensible time is
quantized? To begin with, I will offer an epistemological argument that
it must be, on grounds of causality and conformity with observation. I
will analyze a renowned mathematical expression to show that
quantization of time is expressed (albeit unnoticed) there, and implicit
in, or consistent with, the other fundamental energy relationships of
quantum mechanics. Then I will point out a few implications of this
assumption and show how they can explain or predict many phenomena that
are ?problems? within the current paradigm. I will show how this view
leads to a physically plausible explanation of how gravity arises from
space-time, as the resolved quantum-scale reciprocal of the tensor
described by general relativity. And finally, I will relate this view to
cosmological structure, quantization of stellar redshift, and the
conflation of time and aging with the speed of light.

I invite your attention to the expression (/^hc //G)^a ^1 /H^2 ^a ^ - 1

The agency of quantum action is manifest throughout space-time in a
general and continuous manner. It is implausible to imagine that agency
acting in a space-like way, for reasons of causality, locality, etc...,
and the necessity for general and continuous action naturally directs
our attention to time. Keep in mind that the cited expression
characterizes our observations of physical reality: the elements
represent real observables. Consider the element /^hc //G : knowing (at
least in a descriptive way) that gravity originates out of space-time,
what else could /hc/ represent, other than         space-time? And,
given that putative significance, the presence of Planck?s constant
implies that time is quantized.

Note that E = /hv/ explicitly expresses Planck?s constant, while E
= MC^2 is already quantized in the mass term: mass being a property of
matter in a gravitational field. That field originates in/of quantized
time, as is evident in the first term of the expression noted above.
There/ *C*/ (which I suggest ?stands for? time) is quantized by Planck?s
constant and divided by gravity, while H is the mass of a proton. I
interpret /h*C*/ as representing the average and effective value of
space-time. The whole expression is consistent with the view that
gravity is a ?measure? (mass) of the coupling between space-time and
matter. This is especially evident when a, which is arbitrary, is set to
equal ½ and the Planck mass emerges.

I have asserted that the characteristic rate of the cyclic process
of time (and its associated space) coming into being and collapsing, is
*/C/*, or ?the speed of light?. Consider E = MC^2 , which this view
de-mystifies: it is only a particular case of                E = MV^2
and the value */C/* is explained as the rate of formation of space! ?The
energy inherent in mass is equal to the velocity squared of its
formation?, makes perfect sense. By contrast: ?energy = mass × the speed
of light squared?*,* is ad hoc, even though it is computationally
equivalent and ?correct?. This interpretation of time implies that space
is being recreated in each time quanta. You will note that this explains
the role of */C/* as the ?speed limit? on electromagnetic phenomena,
which propagate as fast as the new space-time comes into being.

This view of time ?makes sense? of the quantum mechanical
uncertainty relationships of position-momentum and time-energy, which
are justly regarded as ?weird? */if/* time is assumed to be continuous.
The uncertainty of position-momentum is usually expressed as a
commutative inequality: /xp_x - p_x x = ^ih /_2 /_ _p in the case, for
instance, of an electron constrained to move only in the X-axis. Since
the momentum and position are both time dependent, and the angular
momentum of an electron equals /^h /2/p, this says it makes all the
difference when you make a measurement. This perception is sharpened if
we set /X=O/,which reduces the uncertainty to time (as the variable in
momentum) and consider the expression:
D/x/ D/p_x / ³ /^h /_4 //p// / derived by Heisenberg via Born, for the
case above: an electron constrained to the X-axis. Where /X/ = /O,
/D/p_x / ³/^ h /_4 //p/ , or ½ the value of an electron?s angular
momentum, and one might as well say that sometimes it doesn?t exist (has
zero value for a conserved observable). But since charge is independent
of time, while we have our existence in it, perhaps it is more accurate
to say that sometimes we are unable to observe the electron.

The relationship expressed by DEDt ³ /^h //_2 /p/ confirms that the
uncertainty of time and energy is equal to the whole angular momentum of
an electron. This is saying that its energy varies completely with time.
That can only make sense if time is cyclic and energy varies with it,
which is consistent with the view that an intermittent time field
induces space and its properties.

This hypothesis may offer an explanation for apparently
instantaneous electron transitions between shells, and for the fact that
the electrons don?t cross the intervening space. If transitions occurred
between quanta, they would appear instantaneous to us, and the electron
would not have crossed our space-time. The forcing effect of periodic
time might create wave-like interferences (Sir Karl Popper?s ?propensity
waves??) whose minima could correspond with the electron orbits. The
intermittent nature of time might explain a variety of wave interference
effects, such as those observed in the ?double-slit? experiments. Such
effects are currently so inexplicable, on the assumption of continuous
time, that some theorists have postulated 10^500 parallel universes to
account for them!

On the assumption that space reformation occurs at ?the speed of
light?, from ubiquitous quantum-scale sites, there should be some part
of a time quanta during which some parts of the space-to-be will not
have been reformed. On this view, /h/ somehow expresses space-time?s
average and effective value. Consider the expression E = /hv/, which
sets no limit on the wave packet?s energy: whence the natural
constraints on frequency and wavelength? These predicted empty regions
might directly inhibit the propagation of wavelengths < 10^-15 meters.
One could also imagine that the spatial distortions resulting from the
interactions of the reformation zones, together with the periodic
forcing of time, would produce progressively more severe interference
effects with shorter wavelengths. Then there would be the absolute
barrier of the duration of the quanta itself: no periodicity could be
more frequent than that of the time quanta cycle itself. Accordingly,
this view explains the natural limitation of the EMF spectrum, and
suggests the physical significance of /h/, which, in turn sets a lower
bound of possibility for the frequency of the time cycle.

Wheeler intuited that space had a ?foam? structure at the quantum
scale, while Chandrasekhar and others have shown that gravitational
effects can arise out of wave collisions. But heretofore no general and
continuous causative agency was recognized, to which such structure and
waves might be ascribed. If my hypothesis is correct, that time is
quantized, then space is continually collapsing and reforming, which
creates the quantum foam structure. I have also suggested that the
expanding and colliding wavefronts are forced into minimal surface
shapes, as is observed in macro-foams, which could induce Schwartzchild
curvature at a quantum space-time scale. This leads directly to a
physical theory of how gravity might arise out of space-time (as
distinguished from descriptions of spooky action at a distance), and to
the question of how such curvature might be differentiated according to
the presence and contiguity of matter.

Consider the properties of the space(s) formed by an oscillating
time metric. In */THE NATURE OF SPACE AND TIME/*, Hawking discusses the
space(s) spontaneously created by an oscillating time metric, but of
course he is treating it as a unique event, rather than a continuous
process. Hawking also rejects the de Sitter solution as a model of ?our?
space, ?because it is empty and expanding exponentially?. As I see it,
de Sitter space will not form in contiguity with matter, but the
universe is almost empty on a cosmological and quantum scale. That it is
hyper-expansive would be a problem if the universe were 10^10 years old,
but if it is never more than one time quanta old, that expansion gets
terminated in each cycle. Even so, it would have a great effect on the
space that does form in contiguity with matter, potentially explaining
the differential curvature of that space.

Time-limited hyper-expansion can also account for cosmic structure
and recent observations that the universe is expanding more rapidly now
than in the past. I explain these observations of increasing expansion
as resulting from the evolution of the time quanta as the universe
dissipates energy internally. But those astrophysicists and
cosmologists, whose comments I have read, seem to be resuscitating the
cosmological constant and trying to rationalize the findings within the
?big bang? model; one reads of an ?antigravity? force! At least *L*
offers a place to patch these new observations into the existing model.
Eddington made a statement that goes very deep and bears on the view of
space-time developed here: ?To drop the cosmical constant (to set L=0)
would knock the bottom out of space?. He felt that our (matter
associated) space is /upheld /by what Lambda represents, and that it
creates the characteristics of space that general relativity describes:
he said,/ G/_mn = L/g/_mn . I feel that he was trying to describe nature
as it is, within a model that is not adequate to that task. It is well
known that a push can be modeled as a pull, and there is historical
precedent for a model that was predictive but unrelated to physical
reality. Perhaps looking for the physical analog of tensor action at a
distance, is like searching for the actual location of a Ptolemaic
epicycle.

Above, I suggested how the characteristic rate of the space-time
cycle sets a limit on the speed of EMF propagation, and thus the natural
constant */C/* became known as ?the speed of light?. This understandable
conflation extends to aging: consider that aging has been recognized as
a function of the passage of time since an immemorial era. We also know
from observation that aging is correlated with */C/*, which hints that
it is the space-time cycle of which it is a function. It is only
apparently and ordinarily correlated to sensible time because we
normally move so slowly through space that time ?overtakes? us (or
passes) at full speed and aging effect: that is, we experience all the
reversals of the time cycle. Note that this affects inanimate entities
too, so it cannot be merely a biological effect, and this lends credence
to the conjecture that the time quanta is a fundamental physical
constant, albeit one that evolves. In the context of discussing the
quantization of redshift, I have suggested that the time quanta is the
only fundamental, natural unit of time; hence the implication of E =
/hv/ is that /v/ takes some specific number of quanta. I am suggesting
that the rate of formation of space is the time with which aging is
correlated; that it is the number of time cycle reversals which an
entity endures, or the number of quanta that pass it by.

This view also elucidates the observation of quantized redshift.
Consider a photon emitted when the universe was young; its energy is
equal to /hv/, and /v/ is defined as waves per unit time. This
relationship of energy to /v/ is natural and fundamental, not an
arbitrary formulation we created, but which was discovered to be a fact
of nature. I assert that there is only one natural and fundamental unit
of time: the quanta. Therefore v is the number of quanta per wave.

As the universe aged, the energy manifest as space-time evolved in
conformity with the second law, some of it being converted into higher
entropy forms including the waste heat of the cosmic background
radiation. The decreasing energy of the time metric leads to an
increasing duration of the time quanta. As the time quanta lasts longer
the ancient photon must travel farther in each time cycle. It cannot
simply add waves (without an input of energy) because that would be an
increase of /v/, so the wavetrain is stretched to cover the greater
distance. The adjustment cannot be smooth, as it must be in increments
of quanta. One suspects there were higher /v/ photons when the time
quanta was shorter, and there should be traces of this ?overtaken?
radiation.

When the ancient photon is observed as part of a spectrum, and that
spectrum is compared to a reference source for red shift analysis, the
reference photons will have a /v/ that is related to the current era
quanta duration. We use an artificial unit of time to measure both
recent photons and those emitted in the early universe, whose wave
trains have been stretched, due to emission in a shorter time quanta
era. I conjecture that this alone (in addition to any other cause such
as recession velocity) will cause an ancient spectra to appear red
shifted when compared to a modern reference.

I have scorned the concept of ?anti-gravity?, as some have
postulated it, in a vain attempt to salvage ?big bang? theories.
However, on my view that the time-metric is quantized, it is the
reformation of space in each time-quanta cycle that produces
gravitational effects. Accordingly the force we experience as
?attraction?, begins as a repulsion. I suggested that the interference
minima between spatial formation waves and matter-waves establishes the
electron shells. Now consider a macro-scale phenomenon that reveals the
fundamentally repulsive, rather than attractive, effects of spatial
reformation: the gravitational singularity, or ?black-hole?. You may
find figure 3.4 of Hawking?s, (op. cit.) illustrative, and the text from
page 44 and following pertinent (in particular, page 48: ?The
periodicity in imaginary time??) to my comments below, though one must
keep in mind that his /theory /is predicated on *continuous *time.

I suggest that the salient point of the change in sign on time at
the event horizon is not that it is negative, but that it /changes. /The
ascription of negativity is merely in conformity to our perspective and
current assumptions. In fact, time does not run backwards, there or
anywhere else, nor does matter enter the past: there is no physical
?past? and we continue to apprehend the matter?s existence. Instead, it
becomes ?phase-advanced? by half a time cycle. Where the less-expansive,
matter-associated space so predominates, *that matter is literally
?squeezed out? of our space-time, into /i/T by the hyper-expansion of
empty-space?s formation.*

These examples of gravity?s fundamentally anti-attractive, or
repulsive, effects suggest that *it is not impossible,* in principle,
*to imagine a technology that utilizes gravitational energy to levitate
and propel matter. *

Roger Penrose made a prescient statement about time in his book _The
Emperor?s New Mind_: /? It is my opinion that our present picture of
physical reality, particularly in relation to the nature of time, is due
for a grand shake-up ---- even greater, perhaps, than that which has
already been provided by present-day relativity and quantum mechanics. /

*Contact Me* <./html/contact_me.html>

	BuiltWithNOF <http://www.netobjects.com>