Physicist Claims Time Has a Geometry 447
sciencenews writes to tell us that a physicist at Stanford has just recently published a peer review website for several physics lectures focusing on a single underlying idea that "time is not a single dimension of spacetime but rather a local geometric distinction in spacetime." The science is presented quite clearly and originally uses GPS systems as a point of focus. From the article: "Not too long ago, people thought the Earth was flat, which meant they thought that gravity pointed in the same direction everywhere. Today, we think of that as a silly idea, but at the same time, most people today (including most scientists) still think of spacetime as if it were a big box with 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension. So, like gravity for a flat Earth, the single time dimension for the 'big box universe' points in one direction, from the Big-Bang into the future. A lot of lip service is given to the idea of "curved spacetime", but the simplistic 3+1 'box' remains the dominant concept of what cosmic spacetime is like."
hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lorentz transform anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
1+1=2 solves problems, too... (Score:3, Insightful)
The novel idea that there are an infinite number of time dimensions in the Universe revolutionizes gravitational theory and much of modern science with it. A number of outstanding scientific mysteries are definitively solved, including observations that lead to the concepts of 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'.
A number of outstanding scientific mysteries are also solved with my new unpublished theory that 1+1 = 2. Doesn't mean that the idea holds water, though.
I think that many problems in academia are because of "publish or perish" advancement. I think this is an example in point.
Warning : possible silly science (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically if it was the genuine article, I would expect the website to list his position with Standford (he appears not be facutly) and his previous work. I didnt see that. The power point presentation has all the signs such as lots of pretty graphs and pictures which "prove" this (although admittedly this is better than most) and a lot of big words. What I would expect to see is a bit of hard maths and maybe one example, he's coming on far too eager. Also he focuses on what it fixes, what does it break? I want some predictions for experiments to measure. Its easy to explain one or two effects with a theory, the real test is what does it predict. I would also expect a link to a preprint explaining this and its abstract. I would go so far that any serious scientist would post a preprint on xxx.lanl.gov as the first step of going public.
I'm very doubious about any werid and wonderfull theory coming from somebody who is outside the world of science, as theres a lot of chafe out there. Just go the poster session of the APS annual meeting to see what I mean. Okay its helpfull to keep an open mind, Einstein came from the outside with his really werid seemly crackpot theories but that happens rarely.
Now just to point out I'm not saying its junk, I havnt read it yet, just saying it appears to raise of a few of the warning flags.
Flat Earth (Score:4, Insightful)
Revolutionary stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
I am a bit skeptical towards those who make revolutionary claims like this and publish it to the general public instead of in scientific journals.
Tor
Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stepping sideways in time... (Score:3, Insightful)
The "arrow" of time is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics: physical systems tend to go from ordered states to disordered ones. That's why, for example, you see the glass fall off the table and break, but you don't see the pieces jump from the floor back to the table and reassemble themselves. Most equations in physics work perfectly well with time going in either direction; thermodynamics is an exception.
I'm not sure I'm ready to swallow the idea of multidimensional time -- I'm still not even sure what one-dimensional time is for, although I think physicist John Wheeler said it well: "Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once."
Re:Lorentz transform anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
What this professor is claiming is quite frankly relativity 101. For instance, it is directly addressed in Section 1-1 of Reflections on Relativity [mathpages.com]; right there in that last diagram is the idea of two distinct time axes with the only distinction between them being which one you happen to be the observer of. We're just barely out of the Preface, and in fact this book happens to develop the idea rather more slowly than some other references!
It takes a real genious to recognize that there is more than one time direction, and that it is "truly true" and not just mathematical sophistry or convenience. But the name of that genious is Albert Einstein, not Alex Mayer.
Re:Revolutionary stuff (Score:1, Insightful)
This is an augment to relativity, not a replacement.
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stepping sideways in time... (Score:3, Insightful)
It might be that from a different perspective, everything can be 'happening' at once, so to speak. Some number of years ago, pretty much everyone thought that the earth was flat, and the celestial bodies rotated around it on fixed spheres. Turns out, no one knew what the hell was going on. Maybe we have a gross misunderstanding about the basic nature of time. This might help us in our temporal existance in organic bodies, but it doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate model of reality.
You're not ready to accept it, and that's good. We can't believe any new crackpot theory that comes along. However, we can't assume we do currently have the right idea, either. We have to be willing to give new ideas a chance.
Re:Lorentz transform anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:heh, yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
Something just doesn't seem right about that power point presentation. The part that raised my red flag, was that this guy claims that he's trying to "get the word out" to a general audience, yet he uses terminology that goes WAY over my head. That's when I know I'm getting bamboozled.
"people thought the Earth was flat" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Point(s) of interest (Score:5, Insightful)
What has testing got to do with it? It will always be a theory, because that's all science can produce. If you want something definate you want mathematical theorems - those are known to be true. Theories never will be - they can just be very reliable at predicting things, nothing more.
When you've spotted the flaw on page 1.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Certainly the reference to how people "not too long ago" believing the Earth to be flat, therefore means that Einstein is wrong trips my bullshit meter.
Oh, and its Yet Another Paper that attempt to "explain the Pioneer Anomaly" in terms of the author's favorite theory. I'm starting to roll my eyes every time the Pioneer Anomaly comes up, because every time I see it, the actual anomaly is not correctly described, before launching into the most tortuous explanation of bizarre logic ever seen outside of Usenet.
Time is just one aspect. (Score:5, Insightful)
In his paper "On the Cause of Geodetic Satellite Accelerations and Other Correlated Unmodeled Phenomena", via the American Geophysical Union in December 2005, he outlined specific modifications to general relativity. The paper's Abstract begins:
"An oversight in the development of the Einstein field equations requires a well-defined amendment to general relativity that very slightly modifies the weak-field Schwarzschild geometry yielding unambiguous new predictions of gravitational relativistic phenomena."
The result of this amendment is an additional relativistic effect. As you may know, in general relativity, the velocity of light is a constant. Thus one's velocity relative to a photon can result in a shift of measured frequency, i.e. the red-shift, or blue-shift of spectra. Also, since the theory claims that accelerated reference frames are identical, this shift is also observed due to gravitational acceleration.
The author claims that gravitationally induced red-shifting is also dependent on the angle through which a photon travels in a gravitational field. In addition, the theory discusses gravity and angular momentum. An accelerating electric charge emits electromagnetic energy. Though long theorized, a similar gravity wave has never been observed. The author suggests that angular momentum, e.g. spinning and orbiting masses emit electromagnetic energy as well. Thus, orbits even in a perfect vacuum will decay. As a spinning body slows, or orbital momentum decays, this energy will be balanced by radiation in the microwave range.
The additional source relativistic red shift, and the additional changes with respect to conservation of momentum, have profound cosmological import, if true. The theory passes the simplicity and beauty tests admirably. What I particularly like about his presentation has to do with testability.
He discusses numerous problems with the GPS and geodetic satellite systems, various puzzling data from several deep space missions, the orbits of planets and moons, and show how his equations account for the discrepancies in the data. He also proposes a number of simple experiments which could prove or disprove his theory. He predicts what to look for in terrestrial microwave radiation, and suggests experiments that could be run using existing satellites which could prove or disprove his theory. He also suggest that other scientist look at data which has already been collected but which he has never seen, and predicts what patterns might confirm the theory.
From the ground up, the ideas are well reasoned, and his approach seems scientifically sound.
Time gets into the mix, because the broader ramifications of the theory are large. Imagine a space ship under constant acceleration. On the floor (aft bulkhead) place two clocks communicating via pulses of light. He shows how each clock (even though they share the same acceleration reference frame) will each view the other as slow. By virtue of general relativity, pairs of clocks on earth should likewise each view the ticks of another clock as slow. Thus, there is no common, universal time. The rate of time is a local attribute at each location.
The cosmological implications if this theory are also impressive.
There is no need to posit dark matter or dark energy. They are discussed only to account for missing matter and the expansion of the universe. However, if this theory is true, the universe is not expanding, thus removing the need to postulate dark energy. The matter needed to keep galaxies from flying apart is no longer needed. Rotating galaxies are radiating microwaves and slowing down, not being gripped by dark matter. The universe finite and unbounded. It is neither expanding nor contracting.
No big bang would have happened. Remember the history of the theory? It was attempting to account for red shifted stellar spectra and for the microwave background. If the red shift is a relativistic phenomenon (not the result of unive
Re:merit of mayer's argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that caveat, I found Mayer worth a serious look. He's got a number of references showing measurements that GR does not explain. The most convincing stuff is from GPS satellite measurements which show an unexplained sawtooth pattern with a period of two cycles per day and an amplitude of several feet (or nanoseconds). GPS satellites and ground stations explicitly correct for the general relativistic effects of the earth's gravity well, so any anomalies would be very interesting. But he's also got anomalies in measurements of hydrogen 21 cm radiation and in the effect of Ganymede on signals sent from the Galileo spacecraft.
If Mayer faked the anomalies (but I believe they're real), he would be shot down in no time. Assuming the anomalies are real, then any theory that can explain them in addition to the rest of the effects explained by GR (precession of Mercury's orbit, redshift of a gravity well, etc) deserves a serious look.
One other point. In grad school, when we students complained about the many annoyances involved in writing and publishing our work, my advisor would say "50% of science is communication." There's alot of wisdom in that. There are plenty of cranks (or not so cranky folk) out there tugging on physicists' sleeves and saying "Einstein was wrong and I have a notebook full of equations to prove it!" I know such a fellow myself, but it would take weeks to examine his equations and maybe months to explain his errors. What he and his ilk lack is the ability to communicate like a scientist. Anyway, where I'm going with all this is that Mayer suffers no such lack. His 'Lecture 1' document is much better than average writing by a scientist. While this doesn't prove his equations are better than Einstein's, it is further reason why he deserves a serious look.