I respect all above answers and they are right but I will add to you to read Scale Relativity theory by L. Nottale may be it will be useful for you. Regards 

The linked article may be of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_%28physics%29#Chirality_and_helicity

I was just inquiring whether someone had ever made that connection; i have come across at least one or two everett like approaches which do, and another that uses the 'lorentz interpretation' where instead of absolute simultanety being rejected or absolute temporal orderings being violated; the objects themselves physically change.  I note that on wikipedia there are everettian like branching space time concrete realists; although wikipedia is either confusing a philosophical view ('modal realism plus branching versus', 'modal realism and traditional entire worlds/diverging worlds view')  with an interpretation of quantum mechanics,

or  confusing the indeterminist arguments againt fatalism using branching space times, where what is argued against is that 'there one marked out future' (the thin red line) where the term concrete is used to denote the fact that prior to the in-deterministic transition branching event  all of the branches are equally real in the sense that they are all objectively possible (concrete possible events in possible world space, or part of the structure of the world so defined, ie they have not been clipped off); that there is no branch that is singled out or pre-determined. The bst people are generally agnostic or rather do not appear to support the viewr the branch, all of the branches/worlds concretely exist; ie that there is no clipping of off/ddropping off of branches at all (there is, but its just indeterministic).

So the in-deterministic viewpoint that branching space time models are used to elucidate seems to be in tension with an everettian like model (although given the standard definitions of determinism and in-determinism; it could be interpreted either way). BST sometimes gives an interpretation or an analysis of qm but generally in the everttian-reference frame per world, concrete sense that wikipedia appears to suggest

May I try to respond to this important question by bringing up a perhaps an even more important question:

What makes time progress?

Strangely most people in science ignore this question, although it is fundamentally important. How can we ever understand the world without knowing what makes time to go?

I have discovered that the cosmos might expand by increasing its metrical scale, and that this expansion mode is what causes the progression of time. The cosmological scale becomes a fifth dimension beyond space and time. By this model each instant has the same spacetime geometry, which means that GR cannot model it. However, by noting that incremental scale adjustments will conserve the 4D spacetime geometry we may model it by combing continuous expansion with discrete scale adjustments allowing a cosmos of perpetual existence.

Therefore, when time progresses we are traveling in scale -motion in scale implies motion in time.

This brought up the question whether motion in space also might imply motion in relative scale. Investigating this possibility, I found that there is certain dynamic scale-factor that allows all acceleration to take place on geodesics of 4D GR.

This would explain the inertial force as a curve spacetime phenomenon similar with gravitation. Furthermore, this dynamic scale implies that Voigt’s transformation should be used rather than Lorentz’s.

This new understanding also implies the existence of an absolute cosmological time, and eliminates the Twin Paradox by making it clear that a clock in motion still runs at the same pace. What we see in motion is distorted due to separation by the fifth scale dimension.

All this has been published in numerous papers and in a book. And, recently the Russian Academy of Sciences also published a book on it, which has been distributed to universities, libraries and bookstores across Russia.

Is the West missing the boat?

Johan Masreliez Ph D

JM: What makes time progress? Strangely most people in science ignore this question, although it is fundamentally important. How can we ever understand the world without knowing what makes time to go?

The scientific community views it as a philosophical question, it's hard to see how the answer could be determined by experiment.

I think the key point is that by asking the question "What makes time progress?" you are already assuming that there is some objective progression to time. That presumption rules out a whole class of alternative, in fact probably most forms of eternalism. Those who do give consideration to such matters for the most part, so I am led to believe, tend to favour a "block universe" approach in some form because it is arguably the simplest philosophy compatible with relativity, but that is one form of eternalism.

I for one would want to know why you think it valid to make a presumption which is at odds with one of the most widely accepted philosophies.

GD: There are several reasons we may consider cosmological scale-expansion of both space and time:

1.      It would resolve the creation enigma-existence could be perpetual.

2.     Scale-expansion agrees with all our observations without assuming any Dark Energy or Cosmological constant.

3.      The corresponding energy-momentum tensor of GR would explain the missing dark energy. (The Too component is Einstein’s critical density.)

4.      Assuming incremental expansion, the metrical scale appears to oscillate. Modeling this in GR allows derivation the deBroglie/Bohm version of QM. This might be the missing link between GR and QM.

5.      This new cosmos model may be modeled by a five-dimensional version of GR, suggesting that Kaluza’s derivation of Maxwell’s equations deals with oscillations in the scale as the fifth dimension. Klein’s curled up fifth dimension could model the oscillating spacetime scale.

6.      Therefore, the electro-magnetic field could be scale oscillation.

This is just part of it. It strongly suggests that this new scale-expanding cosmos model may have considerable merit.

Dear Dr Masreliez,

Do you have any links to some of these articles; i have come across some obscure articles before as tend to be obsessive and find lots of obscure things, so some of the things I may have read might be similar. In the interpretation or model you mention, doe the actual objects change in nature in difference frames, or just have a different 5th dimensional coordinate which we mistakenly connect it with time. If there is a fifth dimension as you mention, are these in fact different objects that we see at the same time, as individuated by different coordinate in the 5th dimension; or the same objects which physically changes, corresponding to this different value in this 5th dimension. I think that lorentz held that the objects themselves change; although there was some other author (might have been russian) in neuroquantology which linked different reference frames to different everettian like worlds or to contextuality (different quantum contexts)

Dear William:

Consider a 2D surface planar world embedded in 3D space. Different 2D worlds may coexist as tangent surfaces to a sphere. Motion of a dot on one of these surfaces cannot be observed directly in another surface, but it might be possible to see the projection of the dot, which could move at a different velocity.

Likewise, a local inertial 4D frame may be associated with each moving object, and objects cannot be observed directly if they are in relative motion in different inertial frames. This situation resolves the Twin Paradox by making us realize that an observed pace of time is not the "real" time but merely a projection onto the local frame. This will also allow clocks to locally run at the same pace regardless of motion.

Transition between frames via acceleration explains the inertial force as being a gravitational-type phenomenon.

do you mention these notions in some of your papers on research gate

Dear Daniel:

Quantum Geometro Dynamics (QMD), as investigated primarily by John Wheeler, came close to being the right theory, but did not attain this goal because it was based on the classical misunderstanding that the world-geometry is four dimensional, and may be modeled by General Relativity (GR). This may not be the case; the world may have an additional dynamic dimension in the form of the metrical scale of 4D spacetime. In fact, a new cosmos theory, the Scale-Expanding-Cosmos (SEC), based on this assumption agrees much better with astronomical observations, and explains the Dark Energy and Dark Matter without speculative ad hoc assumptions.

This new theory also explains the progression of time as mirroring the cosmological expansion, and thus makes the concept of “time” understandable as a physical rather than philosophical concept. It may be shown that cosmological scale-expansion induces 4D spacetime energy with an energy-momentum tensor in which the Too component equals Einstein’s critical density (the Dark Energy). The other three components equal one third of Too making the net energy vacuum density zero.

It is very possible that a new and much better theory may be developed if the 3D spatial geometry of QMD were to be replaced by Einstein’s 4D geometry, with cosmos evolving by discrete scale-increments replicating this 4D geometry. Motion may then be understood as being dynamic change of this 4D geometry. This would also circumvent the troubling fact that 4D GR cannot model motion.

Dear Daniel,

You state "One also has to remember that there has never been any experiment or observation of time." Were you not born in time? Are you not aging in time? I suggest that your life is sound experimental/observational evidence of time, is it not? A neutron decays in time does it not. I don't mean to be disrespectful but you are speaking nonsense are you not?

Hi, daniel

Time might be the most misleading or misunderstood concept in physics, science etc.

However, as a sidenote (might be my bias) i hold that the very concept of probability (graded modality) is the most puzzling and least understood simpliciter (within quantum mechanics).

In some sense I think that the entire concept of probability or rather possibility coming degrees (comparative or numerical) is more puzzling then quantum mechanics, and that possibly probability (under any interpretation or axiomatization or mechanism/metaphysics/physics of action) makes more sense in quantum mechanics then without, or outside qm.

Quantum mechanics is more puzzling then say newtonian mechanics, or statistical mechanics, simply because there is more of it (probability) within it, despite in my view, it making more sense within it (qm).Sort of likeSimpsons paradox) ;

In other words,ie due to the effects of entanglement, perspectivalism and contextuality, issues relating to time, indistinguishability of particles, interference, erasure etc, weak measurement (counter-counterfactuals, and finkish indicative) conditionals there is a lot more structure about probability then we can learn about, and closer connection to (nomological) logic ('if then' statements) and perhaps there lies within its mysteries the possibility of the ultimate reduction (not extension or generalization of logic based on mere symmetry) of probability to a form of strict (ranked) albeit (non-probabilistic) conditional logic; of  a similar nature to the resolution of the problem that plagued neumann till his deathbed.

Its not probability does or does not work differently in quantum mechanics, its as Hardy or someone else alluded to, ' a man of the 1800's should have been able to derive it'; or rather we never had probability right  in any account of physics/metaphysics/modality/logic,  or world to begin with. That is whether qm was and is wrong or even if counterfactually newtonian mechanics remained true) (even so back as cardano plagued us with his quasi discovery of it)

 I think a great deal of the issues of time and reversibility coupled with entanglement and indistinguishability might be necessary to make sense of relative frequency convergence and order invariance, both in the finite case and long run (not just with measure one) but without having to be frequentist at the same time. LIkewise contextuality may allow one to make sense of single probabilities (or probability/chances, 'prima inter pares); that is single case propensity. I think it was either shimony, pitwoski or arranov who said something this effect

,"'probability,, 'qm', and 'relativity' are so nearly contradictory with each other, and so nearly already inconsistent with themselves, that is in virtue of this fact that they (relativity and qm) will complement each so as toother to allow for a deeper (if not full understanding) of both individually and conjointly, and will only be as result of this allowing us to comprehend the probability concept'.

I mean some have already given up and said that the probability concept (deriving the axoms or some numierical axioms, not just a represntation theorem) can never be and never will be understood to any degree. And likewise with the other perhaps more important notion, a derivation of the (even a qualitative one)principal principal (direct inference postulate, indifference, statistical syllogism and born rule are other examples );

by qualitative born rule or PP I mean why is it that equal chances/amplitude squared' /higher/lower( chance /amplitude mod squared' values) correspond to equal /higher lower probabilities,'logical probabilities/objective rational credence'

We cant even answer this finite long even infinite frequencies let alone on the single case; we cant even give a reasonable answer as to why in horse race:

'given two horses, such that the objective single case chance of horse 1 winning,is 99.9 percent, and horse 2, '0.1 percent', that if forced to bet on even odds (and you do also view the utilities of these payoffs as equally positive) on one of the two horses (and the bet is not repeated)  why rationality commands: 'though shalt bet on horse 1";( for example, such that if you bet on horse1 ;you win a million if horse 1 wins and lose nothing (if  horse 2 wins) , and if you bet on horse 2; you win  a million dollars(if horse 2 wins) and lose nothing (if horse 1 wins).

We cant even answer that!; not even if we increase, the chance of horse 1 winning to any number shy of certainty (even up to 1-infinissimal) and give it  a better payoff then the less probable horse 2 bet (trillion dollars, and your utility function is linear in money verssus only 50 000 dollars on horse 2); e still cant; not even if allow repeat bets on different kinds of  (different chance value) events in  reasonable finite (or sometimes infinite long run) either due to the non certainty in the long run in kolmogorov;s axioms or  even if we become long run frequentists; as frequentism has an inability to make sense of limit theorems for independent, albeit not identical distributed variables (kolmogorovs generalization of the strong law) iin certain cases; such theorems appear redudant under frequentism.

Let alone make sense of it one a  one short single chance bet; or epistemically or alethically . If forced have some credence as to which horse should win, to which should we assign the greater value; or given we hardly know what credence even means, if instead we were somehow forced, to have a full belief as to which horse will win, (where you only care about truth or your belief being a  true or validated belief, and it has no effect on any other belief truth possibilities); why should believe, that, or give your assent, to, horse 1 winning as opposed to horse 2 winning?

,

"Can double-slit experiments be explained without invoking the wave-particle duality concept"

Yes, they can.

It turns out that the wave functions actually are modulations of the metrical scale of 4D spacetime. If this is true, deBroglie/Bohm's pilot function may be derived from the geodesic of GR. The pilot guiding action then becomes a gravitation-type phenomenon caused by gradients of the spacetime metrics. Since the modulation of the scale-metric induced by motion takes place "beyond space and time" it's effect is instantaneous, explaining non-local influences.  

Dear Daniel thanks for your response; I do note that hilberts six problem which you consider mentioned not only physics (mechanics) but probability " : "...t; in the first rank are the theory of 'probabilities' and mechanics. Even within a deterministic system one needs to make sense of frequency convergence in the finite and infinite cases; and why it is that the frequencies we observe are characteristic of the entire world; and likewise why we can make of theorems such as kolmogorov;s generalization of the strong law of large number for non identical but independently distributed events. Under you approach would probability just be deterministically produced frequencies over which we ascribe an espestemic uncertainty or what is slighly distinct (and which is sort of a fusion between a physicalist view of the classico-logico interpretation and frequentism) which is the ergodic interpretation (akin to used in statistical mechanics) ; although there are also ensemble views which are more closely aligned with a kind of deterministic frequentism

I respect all above answers and they are right but I will add to you to read Scale Relativity theory by L. Nottale may be it will be useful for you. Regards