Standard model is based on linear time which is an imaginary concept of time not directly associated with the physical reality. This is also true for linear distance. So space-time are imaginary. The reality is based on non linear periodic time and wavelengths of fundamental particles which existed at the beginning near the Planck epoch. So time dilation and length contraction occur automatically with frequency shift and wavelength shift in case of fundamental particles. Secondly it is possible to rewrite entire general relativity in flat space time as shown in following article.

Periodic relativity: the theory of gravity in flat space time

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341999450_Periodic_relativity_the_theory_of_gravity_in_flat_space_time

Very good questions. The easiest to answer is the last: The Planck length isn’t affected by spacetime curvature, it’s just the result of dimensional analysis. Whether something physically significant happens at 0.01 the Planck length, or 100 times the Planck length, isn’t known. The Planck length isn’t a fundamental scale, like the speed of light in special relativity.

To ansxer the other questions requires more time, so I’ll get back on them :)

how do you want to define different points of view, i.e., reference frames, under such extreme circumstances? if there is only space within this extreme compactification of energy'? the laws,, we have at hand today, are not valid there.

Dear John,

Aside from those "awkward questions" you ask, our BigBang concept raises even more. Curiously, it is not that the concept is wrong but that our concept of time is not correct. If you apply another correct concept of time, it is well understood, also why time dilation exist.

which concept of time?

Dear Albert,

The time for all purposes can be considered as a dimension that advances perpendicularly with respect to the rest of the dimensions.

Anything can be time as long as it meets that condition. The expansion of the universe itself could be considered time.

If I have a piece of the universe and I wait 1000 years, that piece will be larger, but for someone within that piece who measures it, it will have the same size since its units of measurement will also be larger. Roughly this is time dilation, you are comparing within your 3 dimensions two different positions in a fourth dimension that is not the classic notion of time that we have, it really is a Zoom.

If you apply that Zoom backwards, we do not have a BigBang in which time emerges from nowhere, we have the entire universe concentrated in one point and a BigBang in which it can be demonstrated how dimensions and time itself are created by E = mc ^ 2.

In summary, E = mc ^ 2 is the potential energy that an object needs to exist, the energy necessary to bring it from the BigBang to its corresponding Zoom level.

Do you remember the end of "Men in Black"? Well, more or less that would be the BigBang changing the time for the Zoom.

This is not just words, it can be shown mathematically

Regarding the previous questions: It's not space that's expanding, it's spacetime, as a whole. An observer ``outside the curvature'' doesn't exist, even in principle, since there's no spacetime, as remarked. But that's not a problem.

Regarding reference frames: They can't matter, in principle-one can choose whichever reference frame is the most convenient and what matters is that it's possible to translate results obtained in one reference frame to any other.

The description of cosmology makes sense from the ``moment'' where spacetime makes sense, where the ``size'' of the Universe became big enough, in space and time, that it made sense to speak of them. How to describe what happened from the Big Bang singularity up to the ``moment'' when spacetime became ``smooth'' enough, is not known yet.

This means that one is dealing always with finite density of matter. Proper time isn't an invariant in curved spacetime, only in flat spacetime.

Regarding ``the age of the Universe'': That it's finite is based on the knowledge of how stars are formed and how they evolve. (Stars are ``born'', ``evolve'' and ``die'', though their ``death'' leads to other objects-they don't, just, ``disappear''.) How to measure it is quite involved;

a good presentation about the age of the Universe may be found here: https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html and here: https://www.pnas.org/content/94/13/6579

(A quite remarkable observation is that the spacetime of our Universe has a ``spatial part'' that is, essentially, flat-the property that spacetime, as a whole is curved is driven by the evolution of the ``temporal part''. So when it is often stated that the Universe is flat, what's meant is the spatial part.)

Dear Stam,

I know that you are a serious and critical researcher.

I invite you, if you have time and desire, to read and above all follow the equations of the next preprint, so you will understand what I mean (You have to follow the equations, at the beginning they are very easy, the words are only words)

Preprint ALL SPECIAL RELATIVITY EQUATIONS OBTAINED USING GALILEAN TRA...

Vikram Zaveri , that is an interesting take, yet it is quite clear that space-time has curvature (gravity itself is mathematically equivalent to anti-deSitter space) in the presence of massive objects. What has yet to be determined is the overall curvature of the universe, or whether regular deSitter space is possible, or if any force is associated with it.

Time dilation is quite real -- you can ask any programmer who works with GPS satellites... They have to correct for both special and general relativity. The fact that the standard model neglects this well-proven theory honestly appalls me. Whether time dilation can effectively cheat causal reality (disregarding arguments from old armchair philosophers) will be the experimental test of my most recent work (provisional utility patent application #63/202,544) which is briefly outlined in a letter (which does not include the details of the invention of said patent application) I just submitted to PRL -- preprint available here:

Preprint Time dilated simultaneity by relativistic entanglement

Stam Nicolis I was under the impression that folks in the field want to quantize gravity due to the Planck scale, because there is absolutely no other reason to quantize it. It is in fact the description of acceleration of massive bodies through space-time -- or have we, as a society, forgotten?

You bring up an interesting point, and I would argue that relativity, both special and general, become exceedingly relevant as soon as the big bang has erupted from a singularity -- as soon as the singularity is gone, you have an exceedingly dense scenario which should particularly curve space-time in a negative fashion. There is no such thing as "just space." We live in a universe with dimensions of space-time. Is the universe actually flat? Last I heard, WMAP data was quite inconclusive, i.e., space-time in our universe is certainly nearly flat in this epoch, but many would argue space-time is flat here on earth, yet if you do not correct for negative curvature of gravity, your GPS will be pretty far off. Even an extremely small space-time curvature of the overall universe which is barely detectable might have a dramatic impact on its future.

Hinnerk Albert Obviously, they should be defined correctly. In the early universe, according to the standard model, any appropriately chosen reference frame should be non-inertial. If space-time is in fact continuously expanding, now as well as then, nothing is moving or accelerating on the grand scale, thus everything is non-inertial, which I find a bit ridiculous, to be honest.

Sergio Garcia Chimeno I'm sorry, what is wrong with time? Space-time is one of our most well-defined and proven physical theories -- general relativity has been proven again and again. What did you find awkward about my questions? All I did was poke holes in something no one seems to ever question. Surely, your "zoom" can be shown mathematically, but is it physical reality?

Dear John Emil Petersen III ,

What existed before time? How are time and dimensions created? Where are the limits of the universe? How is matter created? You don't think these are uncomfortable questions.

Spacetime is one of our best defined and proven physical theories: general relativity has been proven time and time again. Totally agree, I'm just saying that it really isn't space-time, it's space-zoom.

Can you explain the reason for the signature (-, +, +, +)? Is the Pythagorean theorem wrong? Why do we suddenly need the Lorentz transform? Is the speed of light invariable under the most natural transformation of Galileo? Not? Sure?

Zoom is a physical reality, because it is indistinguishable from time.

What is the difference between saying, the second hand of the watch has moved 2 times and saying the universe has expanded by so many m ^ 3 (it is for you to understand, we cannot measure the m ^ 3 because they also expand)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335933492_New_Concept_of_Physics_Energy_Behaviour_and_Its_Application_in_Cosmology_to_Define_Gravity_Value_from_Einstein's_Relativity

John Emil Petersen III, let me, once more, start with the question, that's easiest to answer: The universe-in the sense of spacetime-isn't flat. The reason is that it's known, for a long time, that it's expanding. An expanding spacetime isn't flat, the metric isn't the Minkowski metric (though, for many purposes, taking it as flat is a good approximation). What's remarkable, as I, already, mentioned, is that the spatial part of the spacetime of the Universe is, nearly, flat; the spacetime metric in fact, was found by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker, essentially independently, that's why it's now known as the Freidmann-Lemaïtre-Robertson-Walker metric.

What was then discovered in 1998 was that the expansion isn't constant, but accelerating. Nonetheless, the spatial part remains, essentially, flat.

Regarding GPS corrections to flat spacetime, they describe the positive curvature of spacetime, produced by the Earth; positive masses produce positive curvature.

Spacetime, in the vicinity of a massive object, isn't flat-it's described by the Schwarzschild metric, if the object isn't rotating, nor carries a net electric charge, by the Reissner-Nordstrom metric, if it isn't rotating but is electrically charged and by the Kerr metric if it is rotating but isn't electrically charged and by the Kerr-Newman metric if it is rotating and carries an electric charge.

Regarding the ``quantization of gravity'': The Planck scale is just dimensional analysis. Planck noticed in 1899, as he was working on the description of blackbody radiation, for which he introduced the constant, that's now named after him, that by using Newton's constant, the speed of light and his constant, it was possible to define a system of units: A mass (the Planck mass), a length (the Planck length) and a time (the Planck time). Such a system would be useful to describe phenomena under circumstances where gravitational, relativistic and quantum effects are all equally significant and it's not possible to neglect some of them. But that doesn't mean that something must occur at those scales; once it turn out that such phenomena do exist, these units will prove useful. (See below.)

Going further: There are two reasons, why it's useful to have a description of quantum properties of spacetime (aka ``quantization of gravity''). The first reason is, precisely, to be able to describe the state of the Universe before spacetime became ``smooth enough'', i.e. in what's known as the ``early Universe''; the second reason is to understand certain properties of black holes, in particular how their ``singularities'' are ``resolved''. A singularity implies that the description is incomplete and requires additional conditions. Classical matter can't provide these conditions, because at the length and time scales that are relevant for resolving the singularities, matter is known to have quantum properties, so the question is how these properties affect the spacetime geometry. Classical gravity can't address this issue, because it only is sensitive to classical properties of matter. And what Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose proved is that singularities are generic. So a way of resolving them must be found. That doesn't mean it's easy and it's an ongoing effort to try and understand what questions make sense and what questions, in fact, don't.

Indeed, what Hawking and Penrose realized is that the black hole singularity is a ``future singularity''-something like a ``deadline''; the ``Big Bang singularity'' is a ``past singularity'' (an event in the past).

One way to somehow get an idea of how to start thinking about this is as follows:

Black holes are classical objects-in particular they describe classical regions of spacetime. The question then arises, what happens if the probe of the spacetime isn't a classical probe, but a quantum probe. To understand how a quantum probe explores the geometry of black holes it turns out that the geometry can't remain classical, if the probe can resolve distances of the order of the Planck length and less. How to describe what happens under such circumstances is what comes under the header of ``quantization of gravity''-and provides a first hint of why and how the Planck units are, indeed, relevant.

John,

Anti-deSitter space is possible only locally in and around galaxies. Universe as a whole is flat. Time dilation is real when you use linear time. Most of the dilated time is accounted by special relativity in terms of Doppler shift of light spectra in atomic clocks. Some contribution is from gravitational frequency shift of light spectra in atomic clocks. Special relativity is all flat space time and gravitational frequency shift can be explained in flat space as in Periodic Relativity where it is invariant where as in general relativity it is not invariant. So mentioning curved space time is redundant. While using linear time it may appear that time dilation can cheat causal reality because linear time has an arrow showing past to present to future, but in periodic time there is no cheating because periodic time does not have an arrow. It exists only in present. Time evolution of system is not possible in periodic time.

Vikram Zaveri ads space has nothing to do with reality and ads-cft duality is the last hope of string people to get some more money for nonsense.

Hinnerk Albert,

We have to be little kind to the string people for all the hard work that they are doing.

“…how can we approximate the age of the universe, when at the beginning, the incredible density would dilate time to the point to where proper time since would approach infinity? Which reference frame are we talking about? …”

- such problem indeed exists in official physics, where - as that is in the mainstream philosophy as well - the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time”, and “Matter”, are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in physics for the phenomena/variables/dimensions “space” and “time” a number of really transcendent and really fundamentally non-existent – “relativistic properties of the space/time/spacetime” and “relativistic effects” are illusory postulated.

What are the [absolutely] fundamental phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time”, and fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter” can be, and is, scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904; and how Space and Time are actualized in concrete informational system “Matter” in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, for first reading see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2.

Really time is absolutely fundamentally nothing else/more than the fundamentally “automatically” existent dimension of the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), which fundamentally doesn’t run to anywhere – as, say, any of the space dimensions don’t run – and cannot be so “dilated” by any material objects/means/ways, [and space by no means fundamentally cannot be “contracted”, “expanded”, etc.]

More see at least the second linked paper above, including in the model the unique now really rational model of Matter’s Creation is developed – see the link, section “Cosmology”; where, including, the “matter-antimatter asymmetry” problem practically for sure is correctly solved.

Here only point, that the spacetime really is some logical “automatic” possibility to exist and change for the informational system “Matter”, which [Matter] practically for sure is based on a binary reversible logics [just so the Matter’s spacetime is as it is], i.e. it is some “empty container”, which principally is infinite; so, say, in the spacetime above infinite number of “Matters”, which are logical clones of the observed Matter, can be placed on infinite distances,

- and so the postulated in official physics “space expansion” is really principally non-adequate to the reality transcendent proposition.

However Matter’s “material” base is, practically for sure, corresponding [5]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements, which compose [5]4D dense FLE-lattice, whereas all/every material objects are some – mostly cyclic – disturbances in the lattice.

The lattice indeed principally can be expanded, and it looks as rather rational to assume – as that is in the SSVT cosmological model above – that first – exponentially fast – the FLE-lattice expansion really happened at Beginning – as the lattice “inflation”, not as “inflation” of some transcendent, and so never observed, “scalar field” “inflaton”, etc.

It looks as rational that after inflation the FLE lattice was – and is – constantly modified, as that is rather probably really observed/correctly interpreted now.

However all that – the concrete logical construction of the FLE – and additional logical rules “fundamental Nature forces”, the purposes of the lattice modifications – and of the creation of Matter at all, etc., is fundamentally outside existent official physics, which principally doesn’t know about what/why/and for what reasons happened and happens in Matter in this case.

However the FLE-nature of Matter, which directly is actualized on the Planck scale, including, say, practically for sure the [5]4 utmost fundamental and universal FLE “sizes” are equal to the Planck length, lP, and FLE state change – “FLE flip” - time interval is equal to the Planck time, tP, really reveals itself in many observable physical objects/events/processes.

Correspondingly that

“…The Planck scale is just dimensional analysis. Planck noticed in 1899, as he was working on the description of blackbody radiation, for which he introduced the constant, that's now named after him, that by using Newton's constant, the speed of light and his constant, it was possible to define a system of units: A mass (the Planck mass), a length (the Planck length) and a time (the Planck time)…”

- though historically is correct, but really the Planck scale fundamentally isn’t “just dimensional analysis”. It is, again, utmost fundamental Matter’s base, whereas the observed “fundamental constants” in official physics really are some observable results of the indeed fundamental Planck scale constants; say, the standard speed of light, c, really is equal to c=lP/tP, etc.

“…Regarding the ``quantization of gravity'': There are two reasons, why it's useful to have a description of quantum properties of spacetime (aka ``quantization of gravity''). The first reason is, precisely, to be able to describe the state of the Universe before spacetime became ``smooth enough'', i.e. in what's known as the ``early Universe''; the second reason is to understand certain properties of black holes, in particular how their ``singularities'' are ``resolved'' …”

- about what are “black holes” see the recent SS comment to a Phys.Rev. paper in https://www.researchgate.net/project/Creative-Particles-of-Higgs-or-CPH-Theory/update/60cd823e5e24cd000165fa01; as to the rest in the quote

– again, the spacetime fundamentally cannot, and so haven’t, any “quantum properties”, only some material objects, which interact fundamentally only because of the fundamental Nature forces, interact so, that parameters of the interactions have “the quantum properties”. Including Gravity is fundamentally nothing else than some fundamental Force, and by no means is some interaction in the postulated in the GR systems “mass-spacetime-mass”, correspondingly for Gravity there is no any necessity in any quantum properties of spacetime.

Cheers

As time is 2-dimensional and space-time is 5-dimensional, time dilation must occure in merely 1 direction/ dimension

No one has ever written a physics equation that contained the direct representation of either space or time. Both have always been substituted for by object related measurements. An object is something that has a velocity that can be caused to change. The units of everyone's equations tell us what it is that they are measuring and, therefore, what it is that they are learning about. The unit of the meter is not a specimen of space. The unit of the second is not a specimen of time. Since Relativity theory relies upon the existence of space-contraction and time-dilation, there is no evidence at all to support that theory. The most important fundamental property for learning about the Universe is mass. However, mass was introduced as the third indefinable property of physics mechanics and remains so to this day. There is no mainstream physics definition of mass formed in the historical manner in which almost all other properties have been defined. The historical manner of defining a physics property is to write an equation that expresses that property in terms of other properties that have been previously introduced to us by direct empirical evidence. The first two indefinable properties are space and time. These two properties are permanently indefinable. There are three undefined properties that could have been and should have been defined. They are; mass, temperature, and electric charge. No undefined property is an explained property. All direct empirical evidence consists of effects only. We learn what cause does but not what cause is. The only condition that we can attach to the property of cause is that it must be singular. Otherwise, the Universe would not be fundamentally unified and, therefore, could not exist.

James A Putnam this s very kant style, what you say. and hence wrong. the higgs mechanism tells us in which way we can solve the most intriguing question of natural philosophy. what is mass?

“…Since Relativity theory relies upon the existence of space-contraction and time-dilation, there is no evidence at all to support that theory. The most important fundamental property for learning about the Universe is mass. …. There is no mainstream physics definition of mass formed in the historical manner in which almost all other properties have been defined. … The first two indefinable properties are space and time. These two properties are permanently indefinable. There are three undefined properties that could have been and should have been defined. They are; mass, temperature, and electric charge. …..”

- yeah, that is so; and not only what is in the list above – in the mainstream philosophy and official sciences, including physics, all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, etc.,

- and so really everything that relates to the fundamental entities above, quite logically inevitably as well, are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational – “indefinable” in the James Putnam’s quote above.

That is evident for any normal human, i.e. who is able to think rationally and objectively; so, say, in that

“…James Putnam this s very kant style, what you say. and hence wrong…”

- there are a couple of incorrect claims. First one is that the first quote is “a very kant style”; I. Kant was some mainstream philosopher, and really didn’t understand – what the fundamental entities above are, nonetheless “defined” a lot of them, say – “Space” and “Time”. So these “definitions” are completely transcendent, and so, quite logically inevitably, have no any rational grounds; thus simultaneously with the Kant’s definitions in the mainstream there exist completely legitimately many other equally transcendent “definitions”, where the authors discover numerous marvelous weird properties of space/time/spacetime, and corresponding marvelous weird physical effects;

- and, secondly, so James Putnam quote above is true. That is another thing, that in this quote there are no answers – what the fundamental entities above are, including, say, what is “mass”?

Nonetheless that

“…. the higgs mechanism tells us in which way we can solve the most intriguing question of natural philosophy. what is mass?…..”

- isn’t correct, the “higgs mechanism” is a next transcendent official physics mental construction, the author of which didn’t understand the entities above, including what is “mass”; really this “mechanism” about some transcendent acting of some transcendent never observed “Higgs field” really has no relation to “mass” - to both physical masses – gravitational and inertial ones.

Again, practically all fundamental phenomena/notions above can be, and are, really scientifically defined only in framework of Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s the “The Information as Absolute” conception and informational physical model, the links see the last SS post above.

Including the bodies’ parameter “mass” in physics was rather rationally introduced by Newton as some “measure of inertia”, whereas “Inertia”, i.e. some “resistance” to any changes of any informational pattern/system, including at creation of some pattern/system, always absolutely fundamentally exists because of that the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion “Change” is logically self-inconsistent – at any continuous change of some pattern/system, including any material object, the state of the pattern/system is simultaneously the former, recent, and future states, which are different by definition; what is logical absurdity.

So to overcome this logical handicap it is necessary fundamentally to pay by two points – to spend some portion of “Energy”, and, nonetheless, if the portion isn’t infinite, the state of changing object is uncertain on some level of change – just that the QM describes; and just that Zeno proved 2500 years ago in his outstanding aporias, when he predicted QM.

More, including what are “particles”, “fields”, “charges”, Lorentz transformations, why Matter’s spacetime is as it is, etc., see the SS post above and papers that are linked in the post, for first reading https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2; though to understand – why what is written in the model is true is necessary to read the conception.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko,

Thank you.

If space contraction, then don't take Einstein's way, cause it becomes shorter

Hi Paul Pistea, I did not address object length contraction. I find that there is evidence for it. The evidence that I refer to has to do with the 3/2 fraction in the ideal gas energy equation. Boltzmann's analysis that led to the kinetic theory of gases, in my opinion, failed to explain it. He included walls in what is a gas phenomenon. My finding is that length contraction does explain it. That is another subject and it is not a finding that will be familiar to others although I have written about it. The subject being addressed here has to do with time dilating. There is no evidence to show that time causes effects upon objects or that objects caused effects on time. I do find that there is evidence that time is absolute. It does not consist of a direct measurement of a specimen of time. We can't do that. However, I do find that there is a universal constant measure of time. Its magnitude is already known but has been misinterpreted as a measure of a different property. I have written about it. I post my findings on the Internet. I wrote an essay about it for the first essay contest held by FQXi.org The subject of that contest was The Nature of Time, 2008. My entry The Absoluteness of Time did not score well, but I stand by it. .

Regarding the style of Kant:

The style is of historic experimental physics. It used to be necessary to measure something for it to be used in physics equations. It is now necessary to measure something so that we know the differences between what is physically real and what is imagined by theorists. Theoretical physicists insert both into their equations. They are guided by achieving successful predictions. The real and the unreal can provide successful predictions.

Our best opportunity to learn what each property is is by defining it using the historic method. The only formally defined properties in anyone's equations are those properties that meet that requirement: One must write a mathematical equation that expresses the property in terms of other properties that have been previously introduced to us by direct empirical evidence. Examples of defined properties are energy and momentum.

Theorists have done damage to the science of physics by changing the phrase "a rule of measurement" into the phrase "an operational definition". The change of phrases did not change the meaning. The meaning tells us that the change of phrases was bad physics. It has confused the meaning of "a physics definition". It went so far as to reverse the meaning.

Modern texts teach that a property is defined if it is measured. Historically physics definitions told us what a property is. Measurements of a property do not tell us what the property is. Pages and pages are used to give the appearance that we know what mass is. Yet, when mathematics begins, mass is introduced into physics equations based solely upon its rule of measurement.

Historically, only undefined properties such as mass required a "rule of measurement". No defined property was assigned a "rule of measurement". They did not need physicists to agree on a rule of measurement. Their measurement process was contained in their definition. Mass has not been officially defined. It is still measured by employing, a "rule of measurement".

The use of the phrase "operational definition" serves theorists' desire to give the impression that they have explained the nature of the properties that they use in physics equations. They have not done so. They have damaged physics so that it is less a science and more an imagined existence.

The Higgs' experiment further confirmed that energy is conserved. The theory that predicts the amount of energy to be accounted for is not confirmed. It was not shown that a massless particle acquired mass. The correct procedure for determining what is mass is to go back to the beginning of physics equations and define the property of mass when it first appeared in f=ma. Mass could have been and should have been defined at that time.

Mass is definable by expressing it as mathematically equal to some combination of length and what physicists misleadingly refer to as 'time'. The kilogram then is automatically defined as a combination of meters and seconds. This was not done then and remains undone now by theoretical physics. It is done independently. We can now know what mass is.

We also would have seen how a fundamentally unified physics is derived. Today's mainstream physics is derived based upon the Universe lacking fundamental unity. When mass was decided to be a fundamentally indefinable property, fundamental unity was immediately lost from f=ma and the rest of the physics equations that use mass.

James A Putnam & Sergey Shevchenko I hold the opinion that philosophy has no place in the sciences, especially physics. As far as being able to define these physical properties, you are both simply wrong. Mass is a manifestation of energy, directly related to Einstein's famous equation which every elementary kid knows... The meter is defined as the distance which light travels in that fraction of a second. Temperature is defined as the Boltzmann constant multiplied by the derivative of entropy. One second is defined as the length of time of a number of radiation emissions of a Cesium atom.

All of these quantities can be measured directly in any reference frame, whether it be inertial or non-inertial. These inertial or non-inertial frames defining space-time are explained precisely by the theories of special and general relativity, using the Minkowsky metric... Other metrics mentioned from other answers are more or less mathematically equivalent, yet the math is more convenient to solve certain problems. Where did you guys go to school? This is undergrad stuff...

I am leaving this question unsolved until I receive a satisfactory answer.

John Emil Petersen III totally wrong

Why, gentlemen, are you going around in a vicious circle, to answer the questions of the Lorentz equation and the speed of light that you will not solve for you? I have to explain what was said more than 100 years ago

One point at a time: The 13th edition of Sear and Zemansky, University Physics says: Mass is a property that is so fundamental that it cannot be defined. In the 14th edition, these same modern authors remove this statement and leave the impression that saying what we know about mass is equivalent to defining mass. This is the damage that is being done by theoretical physicists of today and some of yesterday. The texts are not written by the original authors. The original authors made it clear that mass was the third indefinable property of physics mechanics. The first two are length and what physicists inaccurately and unscientifically refer to as time. The 3rd edition of "Sears and Zemansky correctly sets the standard for what a rule of measurement is, and, what a physics definition is. They make clear that a rule of measurement is a substitute method of introducing a property into physics equations when that property lacks a definition. The kilogram is the result of an agreed-upon rule of measurement. No defined physics property is assigned a rule of measurement. The method used in the 3rd edition for defining a physics property is the method that I explained. Einstein's equation does not define mass. It cannot define mass because energy, which is a defined property, is defined in terms that include mass. No circular 'definition' can serve as a physics definition. Energy is defined as the product of force and length. Force is defined as the product of mass and acceleration. The rest of the corrections to your message will follow in their own messages.

Hi Mohamed, I look forward to your contribution. I will say that I do not see myself as going around in a circle vicious or otherwise. Also, I do think that I can address the Lorentz Transforms and the speed of light. Let us see if we agree or disagree.

The meter is not defined as "the distance which light travels in that fraction of a second." The meter can be measured in this way. You have put forward a rule of measurement. Its unit of measurement does not define it. In order to define a meter, one must first define length. Once one has formed the equation that expresses length in terms of other properties that have been previously introduced to us by direct empirical evidence, that equation will define the meter in terms of the units of those other properties. Here is an example of how it would work: We will use the defined property of energy. The definition of energy is E=fxd. The unit of force f is the newton. the unit of the distance d is the meter. The equation tells us that the unit of the Joule is automatically defined as the product of the newton and meter. Space can never be measured or defined. Length can be measured but cannot be defined. There are no Physics properties previously introduced to us before we make use of length., For the above example, the unit of newton is defined by the equation defining force. F=ma defines force. The unit of the newton is automatically defined as the product of kilogram*meter/second/second. The measurement of the newton needs no rule of measurement assigned to it. Its measurement is defined by the already existing rules of measurement assigned to the undefined units of the kilogram the meter and the second. There is a very important fundamental need for definitions to be formed in this manner. Everything we will learn about physics we learn from direct empirical evidence. We must maintain as complete a dependence as is possible upon direct empirical evidence in order to learn what it is that it is attempting to communicate to us. Each definition ties our new knowledge back to previously established knowledge about direct empirical evidence.

The second is not defined by the length of time of the number of radiation emissions of a Cesium atom. The second is a count of the number of radiation emissions of a Cesium atom. Time is the companion to all actions, it is not defined by all actions, it isn't even measured by all actions. A measure of time would require measuring an isolated controlled specimen of time. The count of the cyclic activity of an object is a measurement that pertains to that object and not to something else. Furthermore, there is no equation that defines time; therefore, there is no equation that defines the second.

Temperature is the fourth undefined property of physics. There is no equation that expresses temperature in terms of other properties that were previously introduced to us by direct empirical evidence. Thermodynamic entropy is defined by Clausius as S=Q/T. Circular 'definitions' cannot be definitions of physics properties.

There is no physics equation written by anyone ever that contains the direct representation of either space or time. No experimentation has ever been performed on isolated, controlled specimens of either space or time. All physics knowledge consists of learning about effects only. There is no physical evidence to support the idea that objects can cause effects upon time. There is no physical evidence that time can cause effects upon objects. There is no physical evidence to support the idea that objects can cause effects upon space. There is no physical evidence to support the idea that space can cause effects upon objects. There are no physics equations that predict any of these conditions.

Dear James,

I use a system of units similar to the Planck system but more universal using minimums and maximums, perhaps that is what you are looking for.

The mass can be defined directly by geometry, some time ago I made an attempt but I did not succeed, also by energy (electron-volt) but I do not know if it is feasible to define the kilogram like this.

Hi Sergio, Thank you for sharing your idea with us. My finding with regard to defining mass is that it must be defined and the method for defining it must be the same as for all other defined physics properties. In order to maintain as full a dependency upon direct empirical evidence as is possible, all physics properties that are not length and what physicists call 'time'. must be defined by writing an equation that expresses the defined property in terms of some combination of other properties that have been previously introduced to us by direct empirical evidence. For mass this requirement has appeared to be impossible, leading to mass having been joined with length and physicists' 'time' as indefinable properties. The difficulty for defining mass is that it must be defined in terms of some combination of the only two properties introduced to us prior to mass, i.e., length and Physicists' 'time'. The unit of the kilogram would then be automatically defined in terms of a combination of meters and seconds only. It is not really a surprise that mass appeared to be an indefinable property. This problem has been solved and mass is defined and the equations of physics are being derived with mass fully defined and with fundamental unity fully restored starting from the beginning of physics equations. I haven't mentioned how this is done because I thought there might be interest on the part of some readers to have an opportunity for them to come up with the solution.

Instead of taking Einstein's way, which contracts and is shorter, one better takes einstein's time which seemingly maybe expands.

A few seems necessary comments to a series of James Putnam posts

- again, yeah, the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space”, “Time” - and so “space/time/spacetime” in physics, both – gravitational and inertial “masses”, etc., are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and official sciences;

- and so in physics are defined by some transcendent, etc., ways – as postulating of some transcendent, and really non-adequate to the reality [“relativistic”], really completely irrational, properties of Matter’s space/time/spacetime [“space contraction”, “time dilation”, “spacetime curvature”] and “effects”,

- where, say, space/time/spacetime has some completely “material” properties, when a contracted/dilated/bended space/time/spacetime really “materially” contracts/dilates lengths of, and internal processes in, real material objects; and really forces the real objects to move “along geodesies”. Etc.

Again, rigorous scientific definitions of “Space”, “Time”, and their actualizations in concrete informational system “Matter” as Matter’s space/time/spacetime, can be, and are, given only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception and in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model; for convenience repeat the links https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physicsDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2.

So the “Logos” set elements “Space”, “Time”, and their actualizations in concrete informational patterns/systems, as the patterns/systems’ space/time/spacetimes, are absolutely fundamentally obligatorily necessary for any/every pattern/system could exist and change at all, as the logical possibilities for a pattern/system to be placed in its concrete “space”, and to change in “time” dimensions.

So “Space”, “Time”, and “space” and “time”, don’t have some intrinsic own “measures”, they compose in every concrete case fundamentally nothing else than some fundamentally infinite “empty container” – “spacetime”. If there is only one pattern, which only one time changed, it is senseless to say that this pattern has some concrete “length”, besides that the length absolutely fundamentally isn’t equal to zero exactly, and what is concrete “time interval” of the change, besides that the time interval absolutely fundamentally isn’t equal to zero exactly.

However if there are two and more patterns, and two and more changes, the lengths and time intervals can be compared – more/lesser, simultaneous/earlier/later.

Matter is a huge system of the patterns/systems, at that Matter is rather simple rigorously organized basing on binary reversible logics, and rigorous and ultimately universal system of fundamental laws/links constants; at that the Matter’s “material base” are fundamentally universal fundamental logical binary reversible elements [FLE], which have 5[4] independent degreases of freedom at changing their states [“FLE flips”],

- and so Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally Euclidian, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), where so corresponding universal measures of space and time intervals exist – that are [equal] “sizes” FLE, which are equal practically for sure to Planck length, iP, and FLE flip time interval, which is equal practically for sure to Planck time, tP.

As well as so there exist space and time measures as “meter” and “second”, which are defined in the unity system through the speed of light c=lP/tP, whereas the second is defined by some established number of EM oscillations in a concrete atom, purely arbitrary, or, more correctly, aimed at maximal accordance with earlier “purely material” meter etalon.

Again, any change of any pattern/system is possible only provided that some portion of another “Logos” set element, “Energy”, is spent, because of the logical self-inconsistence of the “Logos” element "Change", and corresponding logical “resistance” of some pattern/system to changing reveals itself as “Inertia” of the pattern/system. Because of the universality of Matte’s base the inertia of material objects also can be measured by using an universal etalon of the “inertial mass”, and

- besides in this case, because of the fundamental Nature force “Gravity” is also fundamentally universal [more see the 2007 SS&VT initial Gravity model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265509276_The_informational_model_-_gravity DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4332.9925 an attached PDF], the gravitational and inertial masses are equivalent.

Etc., the post is long already, so only one comment else to

“…I am leaving this question unsolved until I receive a satisfactory answer.…..”

- if that relates to the thread’s question “Time dilation in the early universe?”,

- then the answer is – the fundamentally infinite [5]4D empty container “Matter’s spacetime” “appeared” just “at once”- absolutely fundamentally “automatically”, just after the first [5]4D FLE appeared in the “Information” Set; and further, at exponential “reproduction” of FLEs as [5]4D dense FLE lattice in the spacetime at the “inflation” epoch, etc., nothing happened with Matter’s spacetime, including the purely transcendent mental construction “time dilation” fundamentally never, of course, happen.

Again, what, with a rather non-zero probability really, happened with Matter at Creation and further – see section “Cosmology” in the SS&VT physical model.

Cheers

Paul,

There is no direct representation of the property of time in anyone's equation. There is no direct empirical evidence to support the idea that time physically interacts with anything else. Theoretical physicists teach us that these two statements are incorrect, and, that the fundamental property of time physically interacts with other physical objects.

A physical object is something that demonstrates effects that are physically measureable. Direct empirical evidence is the listing of effects that are observed in the behaviors of objects. All direct empirical evidence consists of effects. The interesting effects are those that form patterns. We learn about the nature of the Universe by observing patterns in the changes of velocities of objects. Physicists mathematically model these patterns.

Successful predictions result if our models, i.e., the physic equations, are sufficiently accurate simulations of the patterns. It is not necessary for the physicists' interpretations of the variables in their equations to be correct. Bad theory can give good predictions.

Einstein's theory of Relativity contains false interpretations of some properties, inaccurately modeled initial conditions, and mathematical error. His version of the Lorentz transforms is not mathematically supported.

His 'derivation' of the transforms consists of misrepresenting the meanings of some of his variables, plus the 'derivation' breaks down mathematically at the point where he takes two equations, moves everything to the left side of the equals sign for both equations. Then because they both equal zero, he sets those two equations equal to one another. That is not a valid mathematical step. Its supporting explanation in physics textbooks is logically false. His 'derivation' is contrived.

His explanations of E, M, and C in his equation E=MC^2 are not supported by direct empirical evidence. A mathematically sound corrected version yields good predictions plus an understanding of the physics involved that is supported by direct empirical evidence.

Dear James, you are right, but my definition of Time differes from the physicists one. time is motion, i.e variation of space and variation of variation of space, în other words 1st and 2nd derivative, ergo 2-dimensional.

Paul, That is different. Have you written about your theory?

Dear Paul,

Your definition of time would say that it is the same as that of all physicists, even so, a small detail, time also passes even if there is no movement? It would be cause for debate, the answer is no, but for indirect reasons.

Dear James, yes, it is published and its also appears here on RG (... s. decaloque...). But unfortunately I don't think that it will be soon acceptede...

Dear Sergio, as far as I know, physicists don't consider a 2-dimensional time.

Dear Paul,

Ok, I hadn't understood you correctly. No, physicists consider time as a dimension, not as 2-dimensional.

Preprint A Heuristic View on the Composition of Space

Preprint A New View on the Composition of Matter

Like Stam Nicolis commented (June 16) the existence of the Planck length is hypothetical. You can find the formula at Wikipedia and it shows that Planck didn’t realize that his formula exclude the unification of forces (or, he didn’t understand the consequences of unification). Unfortunately, some renowned theorists have adopted the Planck units (it isn’t a theory) and advertised the use of these imaginary units (for example Nobble Prize winner Gerard ‘t Hooft).

The Standard cosmological model is not yet a convincing scientific model. If we relate the Standard model of elementary particles and forces with the Standard cosmological model the most striking difference is the discrepancy between the known basic quantum fields – Higgs field, electric field and magnetic field – and the proposed “universal carrier” of these fields, space itself.

If we assume that space itself can expand we face the problem that the basic quantum fields are independent from the spatial properties of space itself. Because there is no observational evidence that the magnitudes of the scalars of the Higgs field at the present differ from the scalars of the Higgs field some 13 billion years ago (a difference will affect Hydrogen atoms and therefore the frequency of the emitted electromagnetic radiation).

Be aware of the fact that space as the "universal carrier" of the basic quantum fields cannot curve because in vacuum space – that’s nearly the whole volume of the universe – the Higgs field is totally flat (= every scalar has the same magnitude). However, it is Einstein’s theory of General relativity that is used to exhibit a “scientific foundation” under the hypothesis that space can expand.

Unfortunately, cosmologists are convinced that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies originates from the expansion of space itself. Thus the existence of the Higgs field is totally independent from space itself but, in contrast, the electric and corresponding magnetic field are directly related… Well, that is not a really convincing hypothesis.

At the lowest scale size of reality time is a constant. Simply because of the existence of Planck’s constant (change) and the constant speed of light determine quantum time. Thus Einstein’s relative time is not quantum time, it is the variable rate of change of compositions of energy (multiples of Planck’s constant) under different conditions. That’s all.

So forget all those confusing ideas about the “tangibility” of the Standard cosmological model. We have to wait some more years till observations with new instruments show that the model is partly flawed.

With kind regards, Sydney

If planck time is the smallest unit, how could one explain that the value 1/square-seconds is not smaller?

Paul Pistea What are you talking about? Besides, that’s just per second per second— I mean are you in elementary school?

John Peterson, 10^-43 > 10^-86. Very elementary school

Paul Pistea That's seconds squared -- an entirely different physical meaning. 1 s^2 =/= 1 s. Would you care to contribute to the discussion? This is still unsolved, by the way.

https://youtu.be/jsUFpz1iU9Q

Now they are attempting to “Rick Roll” me… What great wisdom am I going to encounter on youtube? Just because you work with a synchrotron, doesn’t mean you get to attack me for telling people what you’re really up to. The only response I recommended from any of you still displays a lack of knowledge of general relativity. Space-time distortion is a fundamental result of general relativity, not just special relativity.