Spacetime, as the name indicates, has three space-like components and one time-like component. The distinction is based on the properties of the Lorentz group.

The same holds in curved spacetime.

The local rate of time is determined by the geometry of spacetime, in general relativity, that means the properties of the metric. All this is the material of standard exercises in courses on general relativity, e.g. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/gr.html or https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9712019.pdf so it would be a good idea for people to actually study the subject.

This topic is discussed many, many times at ResearchGate. It is about the underlying question if Einstein’s theory of General and Special relativity is a model (spacetime) or represents it physical reality?

In quantum field theory time is a constant, because energy is quantized (Planck’s constant) and the velocity of the linear transfer of 1 quantum is a constant too, the constant speed of light. The whole conceptual framework of modern physics is build upon quantum field theory, except gravity. But gravity isn’t a basic quantum field so it doesn’t conflict with quantum field theory. It was Einstein himself (1920) who told his students that gravity is an emergent force field (“without matter there is no theory of General relativity”). A concept that is confirmed by Eric Verlinde in 2011 in relation to Newtonian gravity (thus Newtonian gravity shows to be an emergent forcefield too).

John Wheelers opinion about the “foamy” structure of spacetime isn’t new either, because it originates from the ancient Greek philosophers (Parmenides of Elea and followers). Actually, it is the consequence of the existence of the constant of quantum time in relation to the universe as a rest frame for all the motion – changes in position and time – in the universe. It is widely known in the research for a model that describes gravity as a force field within quantized space (also termed discrete space).

Your “question” is about the physical reality of the time component in Einstein’s curved spacetime. So you have to make a choice. Is modern quantum physics fundamentally wrong because time is relative, or is spacetime just a geometrical model that is used to describe the mutual relations between local compositions of energy in a classical/phenomenological way? (And spatime is the "trick" to get it done.) That is all.

With kind regards, Sydney

The effects described are already in the terrain of relativity, where there are large distances,

in GR cosmological, so I see no need to involve so small distances as Planck length.

Of course things become violent at this so small scale, but the whole concept of spacetime escapes this.

I really dont know how some become crazy over mixing apples and oranges.

Excuse me for primitivism. If to consider the spacetime as some material object (indeed, how gravitational waves transfer momentum-energy, if not?), one must interpret this as a 4D oscillatory system with distributed parameters having stationary solutions for its generalized coordinates in 4D space. Let us simulate this system as 2D elastic membrane. While this membrane is almost flat, the generalized coordinates of its weak oscillations (e.g., EM potential) are described with D'Alembert equation with constant time-spatial factor (e.g., phase velocity). This is the spacetime without taking into account "gravitational field." If to distort this membrane by an external factor (e.g. to inflate a balloon), the local phase velocity becomes depending on the local curvature. This is the spacetime in "gravitational field." Why we cannot interpret the Einstein's "curvature of spacetime" as "curvature" of the 4D distributed oscillatory system keeping the Einstein's equation, as strictly proven by numerous experiments?

In the 4 answers provided so far, I have not heard a clear "yes" or "no" answer to the question: Does 4 dimensional spacetime have a physical time component? This question probes the origin of time at the most fundamental level. Does spacetime oscillate and give us the local rate of time? The physical constants c, G and ħ each have time components. Therefore, these "constants" must change on an absolute scale to keep them constant on the local time scale. I believe we need a model of the universe that incorporates an oscillation to establish the time dimension.

In the model of the universe I advocate, everything in the universe is derived from the quantum vacuum consisting of Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency. This quantifiable model of 4D spacetime gives spacetime its physical constants and natural laws. It makes spacetime a sonic medium that propagates waves at the speed of light. It has a tremendous impedance of c3/G ≈ 4x1035 kg/s. This is also the impedance encountered by gravitational waves if gravitational waves are treated as sonic waves. This wave-based model ultimately explains why we have Lorentz transformations. A wave-based model of an electron generates an electron's electrostatic and gravitational forces.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

I think the most profound description of the nature of space and time is represented in the framework of Minkowski spacetime. The Pauli matrices and Dirac matrices are the coordinate matrices of the Clifford geometric algebra of spacetime, also known as Space-Time Algebra (STA). In STA, every time-line unit vector in the 4x4 Dirac matrix algebra, determines the unique even sub-algebra, represented by the 3x3 Pauli matrices, of an observer. The most well-known reference to STA is David Hestenes' book Space-Time Algebra, Gordon and Breach, NY 1966.

You can make SRT relevant to

small scales, but not GRT so far.

The wave eqn. Has all 4 variables

in it. Thats answer emough. So yes

"Does 4 dimensional spacetime have a physical time component?" (c) My answer is "yes". From mathematical point of view, we cannot obtain oscillating solutions for any generalized coordinate within only real-valued spatial dimensions. So, at least one "extraordinary" independent coordinate must be present. The rate of scales of the both is essentially local value. The fundamental "constants" also. IMHO. However, I do not understand why this locality contradicts the quantum theory...

Garret Eugene Sobczyk

Minkowski spacetime, Pauli matrices and Dirac matrices are abstract mathematical concepts. What I am proposing is very tangible and simple. I claim that spacetime must have a structure that incorporates spatial oscillations at Planck frequency. These oscillations give spacetime its time dimension.

Think about the physical constants G, c, and ħ. These are the constants that create Planck length and Planck frequency. All these constants incorporate time. This is not just time in the abstract. To have invariant laws of nature, the local rate of time affects the value of G, c, and ħ on an absolute scale. To achieve these constants, spacetime itself must incorporate an oscillation (an internal clock). This is the first step towards creating a wave-based universe.

Dear John A. Macken

Read your previous comment once more, because spacetime is also an abstrct mathematical concept. So what you really want to know is the meaning of time in relation to the "foamy" structure of the volume of our universe. Comparable with the question what the meaning is of the universal constants h and c in relation to this "foamy" structure. Questions that already exist some 2500 years (and solved).

With kind regards, Sydney

Yes for example quantum time is rather different from classical time ; with its energy tradeoff.

So is position with momentum tradeoff.

So at very small scales spacetime is rather strange place.

Many physicists consider spacetime to be an abstract concept, but my goal is to elevate spacetime to a tangible, quantifiable medium that is the foundation of the universe. The constants c, G and ħ all have time in their units. General relativity recognizes that the different rates of time implies that the coordinate speed of light scales with the local rate of time. However, the value of G and ħ on an absolute scale must also scale with the local rate of time to maintain the invariant laws of nature throughout the universe.

When spacetime is postulated to have a physical structure, it is possible to test this model. John Wheeler's spacetime foam (Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency) is the foundation of my proposed model of spacetime. From this description, it is possible to calculate the implied physical properties (wave propagation speed, impedance, bulk modulus, etc.) It is then possible to calculate the properties of wave-based fundamental particles. This approach yields insights into an electron's charge and forces.

Dear John A. Macken

If you are convinced that the “fabric of the volume of the universe” is Einstein’s spacetime you are ignoring the existence of the universal scalar field (Higgs field), the universal electric field (3D topological field under invariant volume) and it corresponding magnetic field (vector field). These fields are the basic quantum fields as roughly described in QFT. And the whole conceptual framework of modern physics is build upon the basic quantum fields. So your idea has far reaching consequences.

You want to incorporate a “foamy” structure in spacetime although spacetime only describes the force of gravity as an geometrical (spatial) effect - caused by the existence of matter - and time as the rate of change of the same matter. But all the properties of matter are described in modern physics with the help of the basic quantum fields. Even time because time in QFT (quantum time) is a universal constant (because of h and c).

So try to make up your mind. The GR hierarchy is that matter “rules” spacetime. It curves the volume of our universe and it determines the rate of change everywhere around within the volume of the universe. But why do you think that spacetime is more fundamental as the basic quantum fields? Because it describes the volume of the universe? But the volume of the universe is described by the properties of the basic quantum fields even at the smallest scale size. While spacetime is a macroscopic construct that cannot be transformed into a metric of at least 0,25 x 10-15 m (about the size of the smallest detectable phenomena, inclusive electromagnetic waves).

Don’t think that I disagree with your idea that “space itself” has a “foamy” structure because the consequence of QFT is that the basic quantum fields are descriptions of the mutual relations between the individual units of this “foamy” structure. We know that these different basic quantum fields have a shared spatial structure because the basic quantum fields interfere with each other (e.g. the Higgs mechanism is the interference between scalars and the electromagnetic field).

But if you state that spacetime has a “foamy” structure and a metric equal to the Planck length you are advertising an abstraction that cannot be measured. Of course a lot of theorist use ideas to “get things done”. Like the idea that spacetime influences the electromagnetic field in an indirect (mysterious) way. That means that spacetime and the electromagnetic field are really separated “physical entities”. Although there is no logical, geometrical or experimental proof. It is an assumption.

The only way to influence the direction of the quanta of the universal electric field is with the help of vectors like the magnetic field is doing as the corresponding vector field. Thus if we are convinced that gravity influences the direction of the motion of energy, gravity must be a vector field too. Super positioned on the vectors of the magnetic field. In line with the hierarchy that the emergence of matter in the universe causes the effect of gravity.

Now let us face the consequences if your hypothesis is correct. That means that the units of the “foamy” structure are forced to decrease or increase their volume under influence of the local geometrical curvature. The curvature itself is created by a local surplus of energy (Einstein’s E = m c2). That means that if we increase or decrease the amount of local energy the curvature increases or decreases too and all the units of the “foamy” structure have to adapt the amount of their volume on and on.

So if a spacecraft nears a region in space where the involved units of the foam have increased or decreased their individual volume under influence of a celestial body the volume of the spacecraft must shrink or expand correspondingly. But that is not what we observe because it will influence the velocity of the spacecraft (E = m c2). Thus if space has a “foamy” structure, space “itself” is geometrical flat and time is a constant. So just change terms. Replace “spacetime” with “the volume of our universe” and all the conceptual problems are solved and your research is in line with all the other theorists who try to describe the "foamy" structure.

With kind regards, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm The commonly held model of the universe has about 17 overlapping fields. These include 12 fermion particle fields (electron, muon, etc.) and 5 boson fields (photon, W, Z, etc.) These multiple overlapping fields appear to me to be a chaotic model of the universe that screams for unification. I am proposing that there is a single "Universal field" that oscillates at Planck frequency. All the other secondary fields are lower frequency resonances in the single Planck frequency Universal field. This oscillation also gives spacetime its time dimension.

This concept is elevated from speculation to a supported theory by the analysis in the attached paper below. This paper shows that a model of an electron can be created from the Universal field consisting of Planck length oscillations a Planck frequency. The electron model obtained achieves an electron's approximate energy, spin, de Broglie wave properties and forces. The forces are particularly important. The model explains how it is possible for an electron and a muon to both generate the same electrostatic force (have the same charge) even though they differ in energy by a factor of about 207.

The model also generates an electron's gravitational force. The fact that the medium has a maximum frequency (Planck frequency) means this medium has a boundary that creates a quantifiable nonlinearity. This nonlinearity is shown to create an electron's gravitational effects. For example, the electron model predicts that the electron's gravitational radius (rG) should be given by the equation

rG = Lp2/rc = 6.76x10-58 m

Lp = Planck length & rc = ħ/mec = 3.8610-13 m an electron's Compton radius.

I believe this is the first time that a quantum mechanical model has created a gravitational property. For example, the slope of an electron's gravitational curvature is rG/r.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

Dear John A. Macken

The basic quantum fields "create" the observable/detectable phenomena in the universe and not the opposite (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616).

Anyway, just go on with your research because it is without doubt that you have only one thing in mind: Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

With kind regars, Sydney

Sydney Ernest Grimm I was surprised to discover that the technical paper you referenced to make your point is Art Hobson's paper titled "There are no particles, there are only fields". I have referenced this paper several times and I have been in email contact with Art Hobson. He has helped me, and he is clearly my favorite living physicist. In this paper he says, "Experiment and theory imply unbounded fields, not bounded particles, are fundamental." The fact that he writes about "fields" (plural) does not conflict with my statement that these multiple fundamental fields can be united into a single Universal field. Both of us are emphasizing the foundational importance of fields, not particles.

Dear John A. Macken

Well, maybe there is some misunderstanding because of the limitations of commenting.

With kind regards, Sydney

The universe does not scale

Juan Weisz I do not understand your comment: "The univese does not scale". The spatial scale of the universe is increasing. Even the temporal scale (age) of the universe is increasing. In a broader sense, the predictibility of the natural laws means that we can partially extrapolate (scale) into the future. Please explain your comment.

The laws dep

That the laws depend on the scale

New telescope obs. Go back

9k to 13k m yrs. ago see

no evidence of

Evolution.

Juan Weisz

Your statement is disjointed but it appears to say: "Telescopic observations allow us to see back about 13 billion years. They see no evidence of evolution." This statement is wrong.

The telescopes only see cosmological objects and these observations give clear proof of evilution on a cosmological scale. For example, stars are born, live for a finite time emitting light, then they die. Over their lifetime, all of the stars turn hydrogen into heavier elements such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen. The most massive of these stars end their life in a super nova explosion. This explosion returns the heavier elements to space where these newer elements become part of the next generation of stars that forms. Our sun is thought to be a third generation star. All the elements required for life (except for hydrogen) was made inside a star that has died (exploded). That is evolution on a cosmic scale.

Could be wrong.

With all going on, timeline is

Hard to interpret

iSpace theory - able to derive constants of nature from simple first order multiplicative integer geometric first principles - was able to derive the quantum of time to be exactly 1/6961 iSpaceSecond (in iSpace-IQ unit system, fully and lossless convertible to iSpace-SI unit system in turn fully (100%) lab compatible to MKSA/SI unit system (but using Volt, Ampere, Meter, Second primary units):

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

This - the quantum of time - being a pure physical primary constant of nature in the quantum regime (it in other words - Quantum Mechanics) indeed for sure defines the exact local clock rate (ticks!) of time (without further proof given - in 7D integer quantum subspace time).

If that what is in standard literature defined as 4D Minkowskian spacetime is related to

same exact integer quantized clock time - or not - remains experimentally to be verified in the future (giving a total of 10D with same time or 11D with separate independent relativistic „bendable“ time).

However - what is already proven by iSpace theory as shown when simply following line by line above papers about the derivation of the quantum of time can never be accidental (by any statistical margin whatsoever).

Related further insight to iSpace theory and results of given derived 50+ constants of nature (verified in 2 new fully different unit systems iSpace-SI and iSpace-IQ as well as Planck unit system) can be found in the peer-reviewed, conference papers and preprints on my RG home, all derived with tool wise undisputable exact Mathematica precision;

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian-Wolf-20

Imposinble q time is relative to

Energy

Juan Weisz possible then - and sure then - if

a) “spacetime“ is not Minkowskian 4D type

b) “spacetime“ is hybrid 10D=4D+6D+1D

c) cosmology prooves partially or fully wrong

d) to „infinity“ …: other reasons (UFOs visit …)

Science never says never - get constructive!

In physics yes.

X, y, z, ct

Abstractly a 4d vector

May carry just numbers as components.

Juan Weisz

I am surprised to discover that this discussion topic has received almost 300 "reads" and no one has suggested a model of spacetime that physically incorporates a time. It is not sufficient to merely assign the abstract 4D vectors of X, Y, Z and ct. All atoms and molecules have characteristic frequencies that must conform to the local rate of time (gravitational time dilation). Spacetime itself must incorporate an oscillation that gives spacetime its time dimension.

All the descriptions of spacetime I have seen merely describe the 3 spatial dimensions and artificially insert the time component by postulating "ct" is a dimension. Physically, the 4th dimension requires spacetime to be an oscillating medium.

Well, in classícal non relativistic

Stuff, its even simpler, newtonian

Absolute time.

Then in different contexts, eg. Relativistic

This notion is relativised in

Varios ways, then even more in qm.

„Physically, the 4th dimension requires spacetime to be an oscillating medium.“ - no, not at all if time would be indeed discrete as clearly derived and described by iSpace theory (and already explained above). That in turn woukd be partislly or fully incompatible to your own 4D spacetime model - and that is exactly where your model goes wrong.

I can say, never heard about a link of 4d

Vector to oscilating universe.

Yes, in the framework of Einstein's general theory of relativity, space and time are not separate entities but rather interwoven into a four-dimensional continuum called spacetime. This means that time is not an independent dimension but rather a component of spacetime, just like the three spatial dimensions. In other words, in a four-dimensional space-time, events are described by their spatial coordinates (x, y, z) and their temporal coordinate (t). So, yes, 4 dimensional space-time does have a physical time component.

And time are interwoven into a four-dimensional continuum called space-time. In this theory, time is not an absolute, separate entity, but rather a physical dimension that is intimately connected to the geometry of space. This means that the passage of time and the behavior of objects in space are inextricably linked, and that the fabric of space-time itself can be warped and distorted by the presence of massive objects or other energetic phenomena. So, in short, yes, 4-dimensional space-time has a physical time component.

Ayman Elsharkawy This (GR time model) is an illusion only. Time is discrete in steps of 1/6961 iSpaceSecond in iSpace-IQ unit system for sure, as revealed by inter-relation of SI human-artefact time to true quantum time - following revealed relation from time to e, h and me in Kg and eV verified in two fully different unit systems are never accidental:

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Ayman Elsharkawy

I was hoping for more than a statement that time is a coordinate of 4 dimensional spacetime. My point is that the model of spacetime should explain how time is incorporated into spacetime. Take a cubic meter of spacetime. The X, Y and Z spatial dimensions are implied by the physical cubic shape. Where physically is the time dimension?

John Wheeler's spacetime foam has spacetime physically oscillating at Planck frequency (frequency measured locally). Every volume of spacetime with Planck length radius is oscillating. This oscillation is a clock that determines the rate of time for that location.

The constants G, c and ħ, all incorporate the local rate of time. We know that the coordinate speed of light depends on the local rate of time. However, the absolute value of the gravitational constant (G with units m3/s2kg) also depends on the local rate of time (includes local seconds2). My point is that spacetime itself requires an internal clock (oscillation) to maintain these local constants. The laws of physics would not be invariant everywhere if there was no mechanism to adjust for the gravitational effect on the rate of time.

John A. Macken Dear John, with respect to „..(G With units m^3/s^2kg) also depends on the local rate of time (includes local seconds^2).“ this is what all think with obvious SI unit definition, but iSpace revealed its actually time to power of 8 (!).

Check it out for yourself in full detail: it really is power of 1 for e, power of 2 for h, power of 3 for me in eV (as one second is implied already by the definition of eV in form of A*s or C) and power of 4 for me in MKS/A-SI (and iSpace-SI but NOT iSpace-IQ) Kg (aka VAs^3/m^2):

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

while its (long derivation of u which is in turn just geometrically close to G, respective „orange“ result equation near the end shows simple to understand ratio of Second to iSpaceSecond by the multiplicative iSpace itBHA Human-Artefact time correction factor to transit time back to SI from iSpace-IQ units) to the power of 8 (!) for G:

Preprint iSpace - Analysis of u factor on request of Zinserling

The conclusions from all this about time itself to make are unavoidable, yet everyone has to make such for yourself (and will for sure be both mathematically and mentally impacting for one’s own preferred pet-model such like yours well thought out and described in your book and other works, but based on an illusionary assumed 4D spacetime only).

John A. Macken but and with above on time showed - let me add on the positive side - you and your model are as close to reality one can possibly come with the base assumption of a 4D spacetime only!

Până la urmă omul şi omenirea trebuie să înțeleagă faptul că nu există tridimensional sau patru dimensiuni ale transformării dar şi să facă deosebirea, desigur prin convenţie sau convențiile lui, între conţinutul ca entitate/universal naturii (oscilație/vibraţie/rezonanță) şi corpul ca iluzie a conţinutului respectiv sau percepţie şi metaforă a simţurilor unui conţinut sau corp. Dacă privim cu atenție vom constat nu doar că putem şti, defini, cunoaşte sau cuprinde orice conţinut sau corp printr-o singură dimensiune spaţiu/timp sau loc/vreme ca simultaneitate/dialectică, ci şi faptul că nu există punct fără dimensiune, dreaptă cu o dimensiune, corp cu trei dimensiunii, identic sau egal, etc. Așa cum încearcă ştiinţa, în sens clasic, să ne demonstreze că din puncte fără dimensiune pot apare linii, suprafeţe sau chair corpuri uni, bi, tridimensionale, 4 dimensionale sau multi dimensionale, etc., ştiind prin natura noastră dar şi cunoaştere ştiinţifică faptul că nu poate apere existenţă din inexistenţă niciodată, nicăieri şi niciunde, la fel cum nu poate apare spațiu sau timp, transformare sau devenire, etc. din inexistenţa lor, nimicul fără natură sau fără oscilație/vibraţie/rezonanță ca simultanitate/dialectică neconvenţională. Unde şi când oscilația este secvenţa elementară a naturii iar vibrația/rezonanța dialectica ei şi a naturii. Să privim mai atent liliecii, radarele sau delfinii, tomograful sau radiografia, etc. şi vom constata că toate acestea nu folosesc tridimensionalul ci doar unidimensionalul spaţiu/timppe multiple direcții, ca dimensiune unică sau secvență elementară a transformării ca moment/spaţiu/timp. Noi am avea încredere totală în ştiinţă, chiar dacă limitată doar la percepțiile ei ca matematică, fizică, sau științe în sens clasic, cu condiţia ca dincolo de ele să nu mai existe nimic ca existenţă. Din păcate uităm că dincolo de ele există, parapsihologie, religie, ghicit, zodiac, astrologie, etc., care nu pot fi denumite științe în sens clasic, dar care ne ajută de atâtea ori să depășim crize umane sau științifice dar mai ales nu au dispărut şi nu vor dispare niciodată, nicăieri şi niciunde. Să nu uităm că mediumul este folosit în criminalistică sau altele sau chiar ghicitul, intuiţia, instinctul sau parapsihologia, etc. oare de ce ştiinţa nu acoperă aceste domenii pe acare noi şi neconvenționalul nostru le considerăm metafore ale percepțiilor noastre umane sau științifice sau extrapolări ale ştiinţei, în sens clasic, dincolo de ştiinţa clasică. Să nu confundăm ştiinţa noastră cu știutul naturii noastre care suntem sau în care existăm. Dacă cineva, undeva, cândva, etc. poate să definească sau demonstreze că există două elemente egale sau identice (elementele de bază al oricărei judecăți umane sau științifice, ştiinţă în general sau în sens clasic), că nu există haos ca indiferență/întâmplare sau că liliecii, radarele sau delfinii, tomograful sau radiografia, etc. şi multe altele folosesc bidimensionalul, tridimensionalul, 4 dimensionalul sau multidimensionalul în orientarea sau relaţia lor cu natura, studiu sau cercetare, etc. noi vom renunța în totalitate la neconvenţional şi simultaneitatea lui dialectică, cu condiţia să nu confundăm dialectica lui Hegel sau alte filozofii convenţionale cu neconvenționalul sau simultaneitatea lui dialectică. Desigur suntem de acord că 4 dimensionalul este un caz particular al filozofiei noastre limitat la umanul şi ştiinţa, în sens clasic, faţă de neconvenționalul nostru care presupune existenţa unei singure dimensiuni spaţiu/timp (iluzie a naturii prin convenţie) sau loc/vreme (natură prin convenţie) cu nelimitate direcții ale lor. În plus nu există constante Planck, viteza luminii, pi, Kepler, etc., pe o devenire şi transformare perfectă sau veșnic/eternă, decât în mintea şi judecata umană sau ştiinţifică, identificare, egal şi identic al ei. În caz contrar ar fi dispărut demult veșnicia, eternitatea, devenirea şi transformarea lor şi a noastră, etc., neconvenţională, ca alt sau altfel de convenţii întotdeauna, oriunde şi oricând.

While providing a definitive answer is challenging, I can share my perspective on whether spacetime has an internal clock. Considering John Wheeler's spacetime foam theory, the idea that spacetime oscillates at Planck frequency seems intriguing and reasonable. If this oscillation frequency can be influenced by gravity, we might argue that spacetime possesses an internal clock.

However, this topic is complex, and the nature of spacetime's internal properties remains not fully understood. Further research is crucial to comprehending the intricacies of spacetime. If spacetime lacks an internal clock, there could be other factors determining the local rate of time—potentially tied to the topological or geometric features of spacetime.

In conclusion, the question of whether spacetime has an internal clock is still a subject of scientific debate, necessitating additional research for a more comprehensive understanding.

Erhan Güler in iSpace theory (or model, if one prefers), the electron is a (LEGO style discrete 6D, but let’s that „detail“ aside for the moment for this much simpler argument to work also in a logical 3D „continuum“) donut shaped (warp bent Calabi-Yau intrinsically closed space - and viewed experimentally from 3D/4D space/spacetime point of view as some infinitely small point particle with only its experimentally verified extended electromagnetic field stretching out) ring with both of its magnetic poles centered in exactly the middle of such torus.

The geometric magnetic consequence is exactly the same as for the simple household loudspeaker torus ring moving magnets (available easily on the market for low cost, which seem to especially in neodym form be much more effective for generating music undistorted than traditional solid center magnets surrounded by moving coils).

Ad now both north and south pole center in exactly the middle of such torus - and try to at the same time due to the axial centered magnetization of the torus - such cannot physically work out and the magnet „decides“ (physics takes over!) and in pulsing order north is replaced (squeezed out) from the ring center and south becomes dominant until north squeezes out south again and so on - ad infinitum.

The frequency with this happens is a direct exact theoretical prediction of iSpace theory, and is the inverse of the so called iSpace-BaseTime (ir itB for short in the papers). itB is very simply defined to be the “second“ pert in the Coulomb unit, which must be seen as a fully quantized entity in form of A*s or Ampere*Second in SI units - both of which are quantized!

The Quantum of Ampere (in all of SI, iSpace-SI and iSpace-IQ units) is interestingly just GoldenRatio Ampere (or iSpaceAmpere, respectively), and the Quantum of time (in iSpace-IQ) unit system is just based on the prime 1/6961 iSpaceSecond (exactly).

Such quantized quantum time can be easily - and lossless - converted back to SI and iSpace-SI respectively - by understanding the SI time definition implies a required (undesired, as unknowingly defined arbitrary) human artefact induced *unphysical* (!) time conversion factor of (47*14665487/10^24) Second (SI) per iSpaceSecond (IQ).

The rest is really simple: multiply both quanta to get the exact electron charge e in Coulomb or As as defined in the books up to the last digit precise. As a side effect in understanding the human artefact time factor itBHA needs to be multiplied by the number of core seconds used in an equation - so for Planck constant h this VAs^2 to be compensated by the power of two of itBHA and for electron mass its VAs^3/m^2 to be compensated by the power of 3 of itBHA - that simple.

Its all i here - just follow the precise code style Mathematica paper line by line and you will understand - and everything - as all is based on simple first order multiplication only:

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Erhan Güler in iSpace theory (or model, if one prefers), the electron is a (LEGO style discrete 6D, but let’s that „detail“ aside for the moment for this much simpler argument to work also in a logical 3D „continuum“) donut shaped (warp bent Calabi-Yau intrinsically closed space - and viewed experimentally from 3D/4D space/spacetime point of view as some infinitely small point particle with only its experimentally verified extended electromagnetic field stretching out) ring with both of its magnetic poles centered in exactly the middle of such torus.

The geometric magnetic consequence is exactly the same as for the simple household loudspeaker torus ring moving magnets (available easily on the market for low cost, which seem to especially in neodym form be much more effective for generating music undistorted than traditional solid center magnets surrounded by moving coils).

As now both north and south pole center in exactly the middle of such torus - and try to at the same time due to the axial centered magnetization of the torus - such cannot physically work out and the magnet „decides“ (physics takes over!) and in pulsing order north is replaced (squeezed out) from the ring center and south becomes dominant until north squeezes out south again and so on - ad infinitum.

The frequency with this happens is a direct exact theoretical prediction of iSpace theory, and is the inverse of the so called iSpace-BaseTime (ir itB for short in the papers). itB is very simply defined to be the “second“ part in the Coulomb unit, which must be seen as a fully quantized entity in form of A*s or Ampere*Second in SI units - both of which are quantized!

The Quantum of Ampere (in all of SI, iSpace-SI and iSpace-IQ units) is interestingly just GoldenRatio Ampere (or iSpaceAmpere, respectively), and the Quantum of time (in iSpace-IQ) unit system is just based on the prime 1/6961 iSpaceSecond (exactly).

Such quantized quantum time can be easily - and lossless - converted back to SI and iSpace-SI respectively - by understanding the SI time definition implies a required (undesired, as unknowingly defined arbitrary) human artefact induced *unphysical* (!) time conversion factor of (47*14665487/10^24) Second (SI) per iSpaceSecond (IQ).

The rest is really simple: multiply both quanta to get the exact electron charge e in Coulomb or As as defined in the books up to the last digit precise.

As a side effect in understanding the human artefact time factor itBHA needs to be multiplied by the number of core seconds used in an equation - so for Planck constant h this VAs^2 to be compensated by the power of two of itBHA and for electron mass its VAs^3/m^2 to be compensated by the power of 3 of itBHA - that simple.

Its all there - please just follow the precise code style Mathematica paper line by line and you will understand - and everything - as all is based on simple first order multiplication only:

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Sorry for my duplicate posting here - from my browser point of view (RG issue) the post was not visibke for minutes (!) despite shift-reload attempts of mine.