Feynman's line that: "string theorists don't make predictions,
they make excuses" has been changed from a criticism into a new motto
about how to do science.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=151

http://physicsmathforums.com

Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT)

Feynman's line that: "string theorists don't make predictions,
they make excuses" has been changed from a criticism into a new motto
about how to do science.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=151

http://physicsmathforums.com

Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) Shows that Action-At-A-Distance (quantum
mechanics) an
Moving Dimensions Theory (MDT) Shows that Action-At-A-Distance (quantum
mechanics) and E=mc^2 (relativity) derive from the same underlying
principle: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions

MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY
ABSTRACT
Moving Dimensions Theory accounts for and unifies general relativity
and quantum mechanics by postulating that the fourth dimension is
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in units of the
Planck length at the rate of c. In addition to providing a deeper
framework for the two theories, MDT offers an underlying context
accounting for quantum mechanical, relativistic, and classical physics.
Phenomena including wave-particle duality, quantized energy,
interference phenomenon, the spherical symmetry of photon propagation,
action-at-a-distance, the uncertainty principle, the gravitational
redshift, time dilation, Lorentzian contraction, time's arrow, the
equivalence of mass and energy, and time itself are accounted for
within this deeper framework. The above physical phenomena and many
more, spanning quantum mechanics and relativity, can be seen as arising
from MDT's postulate. Time is not the fourth dimension, but a
phenomenon that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding
relative to the three spatial dimensions, resolving Godel's block
universe paradox and Zeno's paradox.
.


1. The Postulate of Moving Dimensions Theory
MDT's General Postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative
to the three spatial dimensions.


MDT's Specific Postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative
to the three spatial dimensions in units of the Planck length at the
rate of c.


2. The Block Universe Paradox
For years those who have thought have seen that treating time as a
fourth dimension results in a block universe where nothing ever happens
and time travel is possible. Treating time as a fourth dimension on
par with the three spatial dimensions means that the past and future
are already out there. This would deny free will, while also making
both the past and future as tangible as the present. Heretofore these
paradoxes have never been resolved.


Moving Dimensions Theory resolves Godel's block-universe paradox,
first debated by Godel and Einstein, by postulating that the fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Thus
change, time, and movement are inherent within the underlying fabric of
the universe.


Despite the whacked-out theories of pomo-hipster "physicists," time
travel into the distant past nor far future has ever occurred. The
only way we travel through time is one second at a time, and so it is
that there must be some fundamental underlying mechanism which dictates
time's steady march. MDT accounts for this.


3. A Sea of Paradox, Curiosities, and Seemingly Unrelated Phenomenon
John Bell theorized and Alain Aspect demonstrated that when we consider
two originally interacting photons, the way we measure one photon can
immediately affect the state of another photon, no matter how far the
two photons are separated. This is what quantum mechanics predicted,
and this is what experiments have demonstrated. We call this curiosity
action-at-a-distance.


Einstein theorized that mass and energy are one and the same thing. He
expressed this within his famous formula E=mc^2, and the energy pouring
forth from the sun demonstrates this every day.


Suppose I told you that the above two phenomena-E=mc^2 and
action-at-a-distance-derive from the same fundamental underlying
reality-the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions.


Thus, in the first case of the photons, though they propagate in
opposite directions in the fourth expanding dimension, their locality
in the fourth dimension yet remains in a single place, as the dimension
itself is expanding. This expansion appears as a spherically symmetric
wave front in the three spatial dimensions, and hence the spherically
symmetric propagation of a photon's probability wave. A photon does
not age-it stays the exact same place in time-this is because it
moves with the expanding fourth dimension.


In the second case of Einstein's E=mc^2, the reason why a baseball
stationary upon a lab bench has a vast energy is that it is propagating
through space-time with velocity of c. And it is propagating through
space-time with velocity c because the fourth dimension is expanding
relative to the three spatial dimensions with velocity c. The
fundamental motion of the underlying fabric of space-time is from where
the vast amounts of energy derive. Were the baseball's mass
transferred into the fourth expanding dimension, the mass would
manifest itself as trillions upon trillions of photons propagating a
spherically-symmetric wavefronts-matter, mass, energy, or momenergy,
depending on your preferred term, surfing the expanding foruth
dimension.


http://physicsmathforums.com


MDT, unlike String Theory, also satisfies Einstein's requirements for a
scientfic theory:


In his autobiography Einstein said:


Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of
physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be
said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to
criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious:
The theory must not contradict empirical facts. However evident this
demand may in the first place appear, its application turns out to be
quite delicate. For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to
adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaption of
the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions.
In any case, however, this first point of view is concerned with the
confirmation of the theoretical foundation by the available empirical
facts.
The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to
the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself,
with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness"
or " logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of
the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of
view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has
played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories
since time immemorial. The problem here is not simply one of a kind of
enumeration of the logically independent premises (if anything like
this were at all unequivocally possible), but that of a kind of
reciprocal weighing of incommeasurable qualities. Furthermore, among
theories of equally "simple" foundation that one is to be taken as
superior which most sharply delimits the qualities of system in the
abstract (i.e., contains that most definite claims). Of the "realm" of
theories I need not speak here, inasmuch as we are confining ourselves
to such theories whose object is the totality of all physical
appearances. The second point of view may briefly be characterized as
concerning itself with the "inner perfection" of the theory, whereas
the first point of view refers to the "external confirmation." The
following I reckon as also belonging to the "inner perfection" of a
theory: we prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint,
it is not the result of an arbitrary choice among theories which, among
themselves, are of equal value and analogously constructed.
Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume One,
1949, Autobiographical Notes, p 21-23,
Open Court, Cambridge University Press.