Mauro,
I reviewed some of Zitter and ZPE -If I implied that time had
spatial dimension then yes I was wrong. That would imply that something
could move in the temporal direction and would no longer occupy the same
spatial position which is untrue. IMHO temporal displacement would only
cause the object to accelerate atomically and contract but still centered on
its' initial spatial position. I have been struggling with the concept of
Lorentz contraction with linear acceleration vs what occurs inside a Casimir
cavity where my interpretation of "up conversion" is relativistic meaning
space time is twisted making the longer vac flux "appear" faster from our
perspective - this gives you a head start of an accelerated inertial frame
inside a stationary cavity through equivalence while also approaching the
limit between 2D and 3d via plate confinement. The confinement allows heat
energy to be redirected into this equivalence vector. Unlike Lorentz
contraction and time dilation where linear acceleration doesn't start to
expose these attributes until significant fractions of C are achieved, the
confinement inside the cavity and head start due to equivalence seem to
point this vector directly into the time axis instead of angled proportional
to acceleration. The huge linear acceleration used in the Twin paradox isn't
necessary or obviously even possible. I am not saying gas atoms just time
travel and get pushed outside of the temporal walls to appear in the future
- they still have to go through time dilation and from their perspective put
in all the normal reactionary time we attribute to catalytic action but I am
saying the geometry allows them a huge discount relative to acceleration -
with 1 dimension almost collapsed and the other 2 very confined any heat
energy is going to contribute to further accelerate this equivalence vector.
Whether we refer to this as a direction or just speeding up the atomic by
further curving the vacuum flux the result is the same.
It's a good thing this is Vortex because I'm past wild speculation above
and don't have a shred of math to support this idea :_)
Hi Frank
Time does not exist at the physical level. So, you have no right in
physics to talk about time dimensions. You can do it, of course, and
even model it mathematically, but your theory will make no physical sense.
This was discussed to a certain extent in the past here on vortex.
Search the archive for "Zitter and ZPE" for an entertaining read.
Mauro
[snip]
Re: [Vo]:Zitter and ZPE
Mauro Lacy
Sun, 24 May 2009 06:25:52 -0700
grok wrote:
>
> As the smoke cleared, Mauro Lacy <ma...@lacy.com.ar>
> mounted the barricade and roared out:
>
> > The problem with so called "time dimensions", is that they lack
> > underlying physical reality. Time does not exist as such, at the
> > physical level; that is, there's nothing inherently real in the mental
> > construction we call time, at the physical level.
>
> 'Time', in fact, is the motion of matter in space. Whatever they are.
> It is an
The motion of matter in space is not time, but, erm, the motion of
matter in space(whatever they are.)
> emergent phenomenon. You start there.
You can call it that way, if you like. But certainly it is not
necessary. Moreover, it is prone to confussion, because the expression
'emergent phenomena' is frequently used to talk about and characterize
things or phenomena that you really don't understand.
Time is a consequence, a result, of movement.
>
> To fixate on 'time' as some entity unto itself is to reify this
> relation of matter
> and space into something it is not.
You're right, and I'm doing the opposite: showing the abstract character
of physical time, and trying to understand and layout the ways and means
by which we started to attribute reality('reify', as you say) to
something that hasn't.
>
>
> -- grok.
