|Subject: RE: note for Tom
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 22:48:11 -0600
I always had much sympathy with the Wheeler-Feynman absorber approach. One of my main objections is that they missed the mechanism that generates the flow of a mass through time. In my view, no observable -- being a frozen instantaneous 3-space snapshot -- exists continuously in time, but only RECURS CONTINUALLY in the continual iterative application of the d/dt observation process.
I also fault any theory which continues the "separate force acting on a separate mass" non sequitur. If we accept the definition of force as identically the time rate of change of momentum --- of F => d/dt(mv) --- then mass is a component of force. The "force" consists of the massless causal field (4-space entity) prior to observation, interacting with a previous "frozen point" observable (m). Feynman understood, of course, that the force field does not really exist in mass-free space, but only the "potential" for a force, should a unit point charge (with mass) be made available and interacting with the field). So he had the essence of this part. But in mechanics, the global teaching of the "separate force acting on a separate mass" is still a non sequitur.
There are many other foundations difficulties, and no one has the solution to all of them! The solutions to a few are, I believe, available.
What I recommend is needed is a "Manhattan style" rework of the very foundations of physics, adequately funded, and with our best and brightest (some of whom may be bright-eyed newcomers with deep thinking minds).
I expect that more scientific progress could be made in five years with such a program, than all our national laboratories will make in the next decade.
The beauty of using the mechanism that generates the "rate of flow of time" is that it is engineerable on the bench. One is able to generate the reaction equations, e.g., for the production of the excess deuterium, excess tritium, and alpha particles in cold fusion. These are transmutations at low spatial energy (but very high time energy).
When addressing fundamental issues, it is often helpful to think in terms of a physics model using only a single fundamental unit. Since I work in novel energy systems, I particularly prefer the model where the joule is the only fundamental unit. Mass then becomes a total function of energy (which is comfortable to everyone, since the dawn of the nuclear age and E = mc(2) But the fact that time (the second) is also now totally a function of energy, seems startling to most, who still think of time as a "mysterious river" down which we float. It isn't that at all.
In my favored model, time has the same energy density as mass. One takes some EM spatial energy, e.g., and compresses it by the factor c-squared. If one leaves that compressed energy in 3-space, it is known as mass. If one moves it over to the fourth axis and places it there, the only variable in ict is the t. So it becomes "time". In that view, one second is some 9 x 10exp(16) joules of compressed spatial energy.
From that, consider a photon, which is a piece of energy welded to a piece of time, so to speak. The present "high energy" photon is really the photon with the "highest spatial energy" component. That is of course the high frequency photon. But the low frequency photon has far higher TOTAL energy, if the time-energy component's spatial energy equivalency is considered.
Hence the present "high energy physics" featuring high frequency photons is quite puerile compared to low frequency photons and their extraordinarily high EM energy.
The importance of cold fusion is that it uses a bit of that time-energy to achieve easily the nuclear transformations at low SPATIAL energy (but using a much higher total energy physics than the present high energy physicists know or use).
We will have all that in the book, plus the use of time-reversal zones to enable the use of that time-energy component.
However, let me point out that any model is just a model, and it is also known to be imperfect (by Godel's theorem and its proof, alone!). So one must not worship a particular model, even one's own! Each will come up short as additional phenomena are discovered.
Some of your cogent observations are very close to some other things I will have in the book, but cannot discuss presently. As an example, we will nominate candidate mechanisms -- laboratory bench testable -- for the cause of the excess gravity holding the arms of the spiral galaxies together, and also for the excess negative gravity that is accelerating the observed expansion of the universe. Then of course those will either be validated eventually, or refuted. That is the way science progresses. There is nothing wrong with proposing a hypothesis, just so long as one labels it that. Then experiment decides whether it hit the mark or missed the boat.
In the future I will also have less time for answering correspondence, so wanted to get this to you while I had a little bit of time. I very much encourage those who are thinking deeply about these areas, and particularly those who have more capability than I personally have. It will take many persons, doing lots of thought and discovery, before we have the new science I think is trying to get born. And one freely admits one advances such things on the shoulders of giants, such as Feynman, Wheeler, Hawking, Einstein, and many others. My own particular interest is in getting COP>1.0 EM power systems developed and onto the world market, and also getting a better type of medical therapy established along the lines pioneered by Priore, but never understood. The rest I have to leave to others better versed than I am. But physics is such a marvelous and broad field, and there are so many really great things now unfolding and possibilities envisioned, that it is a truly great time for the young physicist to be alive. For the first time, I think, he or she has the opportunity to help develop a physics that will free us from the energy crisis forever, uplift those poor nations that will have to have cheap clean energy to ever have a good economy, and eventually provide the ships that take us to the other planets and perhaps even the stars.
So I may not see it in my lifetime — being an old dog — but the young ones can. And hopefully will.
Very best wishes,