A SHORT THEORY OF TIME
hypothesis
last update -
31.03.2002
|
Aleksander St. Uzunov
IIIIIIIII auzunov@yahoo.com |
+359 87 335 187 http://asu.hit.bg/english |
Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy
showed that the state of a system cannot be measured exactly and so its future
behavior cannot be predicted accurately. Only the probabilities of the different
egresses can be forecast. This very element of chance is what troubled Einstein
so much. He refused to accept that the laws of physics cannot make an
unambiguous and exact prediction of what may happen. But, no matter how we
express it, the proof is this: the quantum phenomena and the principle of
indeterminacy are inevitable and they are observed in every branch of physics.
Stephen Hawking
“In
nature there are no variations only if we haven’t looked for any.” /The resonance-isomorphic principle, K.
Tomov/
And a little bit more:
“In
1905 Einstein taught the physicists that time and space were not independent
concepts, but the two parts of an indivisible whole, the space-time.” /Life in science, M. White, D. Gribin/.
As
a matter of fact, something, which due to lack of a better definition is
compared to the flight of an arrow, suggests the notion of a long straight line
with beginning and end. The problem is that this line wouldn’t look quite in
place in a picture, painted solely with the help of the complex and varying curves
of space and matter. These were the notions that provoked my thoughts, which I
will describe below.
First,
let us imagine that the whole Universe appears and disappears, and that is how it
has been, and that is how it will be forever. We can try, can’t we? Or, as Isak
Azimov says: “We have no reasons to believe that this is not the way it is.” /The gravity collapse of the Universe/.
Why? Because we cannot even approach such a phenomenon
with our senses. We couldn’t see it, since our eyes vanish with the world.
There is no device, no matter how precise and sensitive, that would measure it,
due to the same reasons. We don’t know for how long we are “here”, “somewhere”,
or, better say, “nowhere”. In other words, according to our notions, the time
between the intervals and the intervals themselves, when talking about an
outside observer, could be a part of a second or of million years.
However,
one thing is for sure:
Every time we’re
“here”, we are different; i.e. a change has been made.
And one more thing,
which, for the time being, we will claim to be true:
The
difference between two close intervals is the smallest possible change.
This sounds almost absurd, since it would mean that when we are “here” we will be, generally speaking, absolutely immovable, then we will be “nowhere”, then “here” again, but changed. In other words, every particle changes its position, but the way it goes is the shortest possible. Like in movies. The film rolls, the frames change twenty-four times per second. But when we watch it we don’t notice the frame change, because the eyes, which otherwise do a fine job, are quite imperfect. In fact, we, like the movie characters, move “in frames”, but it seems, that our frames are a lot more. It can be showed as follows:
(fig. 1)
The
appearances are showed as dots. That follows from the second conclusion. In
this perspective, it means that THERE IS NO MOTION IN THE UNIVERSE. But how is that, if everything is
moving? This necessitates the definition of two basic systems /levels/, which
depend solely on each other. The first is presented by any of the dots on fig. 1.
It obeys no laws of movement. It sets these laws by its strictly fixed
geometrical structure. The accumulated energy is released as an impulse
/interval/, after which the next state of balance occurs /dot/. The second
system consists of all subsequent phases of the first, or:
Time is not a
phenomenon, which simply depends on the speed of movement; it is movement
itself.
Let
us imagine a clock. It’s a device, which shows us the time. It has a spring,
which drives the cogwheels and their rotating speed is set by a specific
anchor-like mechanism. Every clock in the world is set in such a way, that the
hand, which shows the seconds, makes one full round for exactly one minute. The
concepts of second, minute, hour and so on are defined by a certain system of measurements
and describe a certain quantity of time. Defined by us. If the clock starts
moving faster or slower we'd say it’s broken and we'd take it to a watchmaker.
But the more interesting case is when we want to make it work at a different
speed.
We
know there are no immovable things. One would say “Every night my car is
absolutely motionless out there in the car-park”. I would remind him that his
car isn’t just moving, but it spins around the earth’s axis at about 30 km/sec.
The Earth, on its behalf, moves around the Sun, which is a part of a galaxy,
called the Milky Way, which, on its behalf, spins as well and even moves in a
specific direction In space. God knows what the direction of the car’s movement
is at any time, as well as the total velocity of all the movements, but it is
not so difficult to guess that it’s enormous. From now on, if we want to slow
down our clock, we will have to listen to Einstein and accelerate it at a speed
close to that of light in relation to our system. And if our arguments until
now are correct, it will appear and disappear less times, than it will if it is
motionless in relation to the Earth. The opposite case makes sense too. The
conclusion is rather important and it has to be mentioned. The Universe does
not appear and disappear at one and the same time, like the fluctuations /let
us name them so/ of every single body are defined by its speed in relation to
the absolute zero speed. The following can be concluded:
Time is change and
depends on the frequency of the fluctuations, concerning a certain fragment of
space.
We
know that time is defined by movement. So:
The length of the
intervals defines space and depends on energy. Their number for a certain
fragment of space defines time. Both variables depend on the velocity. Let us
call the ratio between them a time ratio /KB/. A 'ratio', since it will be a
variable with a certain minimum and maximum critical value of speed.
Here,
“critical speed” doesn’t mean a “speed limit”. It solely means those
limitations which concern the realization of a certain condition, e.g. the
Universe we know.
If
we define speed not as a distance, covered for a certain time, but as a
frequency of vibrations that depend on the energy of movement for a certain
fragment of space /lower frequency, higher speed/, we will see that it will be
the definition of time, i.e.:
Time
equals the speed in relation to the absolute zero speed.
Now,
we can build a coordinate system where X is time-speed, beginning at zero, and
Y is the time ratio.
(fig. 2)
The
curve represents the Universe. A certain part of it represents the Universe
that we know /observe/, i.e. we cannot observe other parts directly. If we move
a point from any part of the curve to the left we’ll have the Einstein’s picture,
which we will be able to predict, using the time ratio. And if we try to play a
bit, sooner or later we will come across such misunderstandings as Heisenberg’s
principle of indeterminacy. As far as the speed of light is concerned, yes, it
is constant, but only if we consider it from a certain part of the curve, i.e.
we can assume that C is the difference between the different speed of
the movements. The meaning of the rest of the constant values, i.e. the
absolute zero /temperature/, the relation of weight to volume /density/, etc.,
is similar.
The
b intervals, defined by the energy of
the movement, do not imply a smooth change in their values. So, the curve on
fig.2 is a sequence of lines, parallel to x. Their length is in a direct
proportion to KB. The distance between them in the curve, described in the
terms of space, is in an inverse proportion to KB /and if it refers to the
weight of the objects /bodies/, do we have the reason to doubt its change?/.
In order to examine the
curve and especially its beginning and end, it’s already time to make an
attempt to describe the mechanism of the vibrations. We know that the
elementary particles consist of quarks and that the interaction between them is
carried out by gluons. Let this be our starting point. The problem is, that a
single quark cannot be traced during the usual observations
/accelerator-particle/ and, as we will see later, it will never be traced. Why
is that so?
Let
us imagine that the whole space /the ether/ consists of gluons with absolute zero speed, placed at one and the same
distance to each other, like in crystal structures. In this case what should
quarks do? They have to “associate” with each other to make a particle round a
certain gluon and then, following their movement, they will have to
“dissociate” and move to the next one /fig. 3/. The number of the gluons passed
depends on the energy, shown by the time ratio, and on the fact whether there
are gluons, occupied with other quarks or not /important/.
KB
can be shown as: 
, where 
is the distance
between two neighbouring gluons and 
is the number of
intervals /vibrations, matter frequency/.
(fig.3)
Since
there is power that makes quarks associate with each other round a certain
gluon, it will as well deprive them of some of their motion energy when they
pass different gluons. In other words, the question about the first law of
mechanics stays open. If we follow all our arguments it turns out that every
“independent” object moves with constant deceleration, i.e. the time ratio
comes to zero. It must be underlined, that if a time ratio comes to zero, it is
increased to the maximum KB: 
, which is the beginning of the curve, where ő1 is
the lowest possible speed /fig. 2/. What would happen to such an object? The
energy of the movement decreases gradually and at a certain moment the object
will transform into a different kind of matter for zero time and this new matter I would call matter
of first kind. This mechanism follows the attraction
between quarks and gluons. And so a new factor must be added – the
rotation of the objects.
In
how many directions can a body rotate? And what is the minimum number of
directions which is enough for it to exist in the matter we know, which obeys
the gravity laws? Answer: at least two, /and maybe even more/, round the
intersection of the rotation axes. The
beauty and the importance of the rotation comes from the fact that, no matter
how insignificant the difference between the centre and the periphery speed is,
it still exists; i.e.
having occupied certain gluons, some of the
particles have the chance to affect others while they “don’t exist”, increasing
the route of their quarks in space and we can add a certain factor, responding
to the minimum number of the revolutions and depending on the KB. I think it
won’t be too daring to say:
Gravity
is not force, but a phenomenon that follows from the rotation of the objects.
/see the part on Gravity/
It
means that each object, which stops moving, will transform into super-dense
matter, i.e. all neighbouring gluons will be occupied. /And what if it does not
stop, but continues rotating quickly enough?/. The object would obtain the
absolute zero speed – time, absolute density, with no relation to gravity.
Every
object bound to another in a system
keeps the rotation of the whole, since the attraction between them is carried
out at an angle, defined by the each object’s rotation, i.e. each system may be
considered a single object.
About the right part of the scheme.
At
a certain moment and a certain speed, the KB will become zero, i.e. within the
framework of a certain space fragment the energy of the movement exceeds the
energy of quarks-gluons attraction, or, in other words, we’ll have zero
intervals. From a mathematical point of view, that would be the death of the
matter and it probably is. On the other hand, it is a factor defined by the
choice of the length of a certain line, proportionate to the distance between
two neighbouring gluons. So, KB is transformed into: 
, where 
is the number of
subsequent lines of space, which are enough for 
.
KB cannot
equal zero outside the beginning of the coordinate system.
LEVELS OF REFLECTION
and the principle of indeterminacy
Let
us divide the Universe into parts or, better say, levels of reflection. At the
first level we study everything from the elementary particles and downwards; at
the second - the elementary particles
plus everything else – atoms, molecules, apples, /every neither living, nor
dead cats as well/, stars, etc., or:
- first level - movement;
- second level - interactions
and the total lack of movement, concerning the elementary particles, i.e. an
electron is an electron only when it exists and that doesn’t apply to the first
level. The interactions, which define the powers we know, are states of matter
at the right part of fig. 2, applied to the left /as a consequence of the
rotation of the objects/;
- third level – a total of subsequent second level states; the
difference between them is the smallest possible change;
In
other words, the phenomenon of the apple, falling over the Newton’s head, might
be considered only at the third level of reflection. At the second we would
have to study billions of apples, hanging over billion Newtons. And what about
the first? At the first level of reflection there are neither Newtons, nor
apples, nor problems; there are only quarks and gluons.
THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTION
The
position of the occupied gluons in a certain line /proportionate to the
distance of two neighbouring gluons/ is very important. Whether it’s there,
where the quarks will gather, or it lies on their way.
In
the first case, deceleration or impact will occur, depending on that, whether
the gluon is occupied at that moment or the quarks, that have occupied it, are
leaving, or they are at a stable, balanced state. The geometrical position
defines the direction and the action – bouncing, dissociation /annihilation/,
deceleration, acceleration. In this way, transformation into another kind of
particle may occur /e.g. p into µ/. In the second case, displacement in
space, and KB respectively, without a change in its value, will occur.
This
principle, /perhaps we would not be mistaken if we call it the principle of
proportion/, would be appropriate in describing and interpreting such phenomena
as transparency of the objects, the tunnel effect, the wave function, the photo
effect, the chemical and mechanical solutions and reactions, i.e. the colour,
even the smell and the taste of a certain chemical substance might be
predicted, the diffusion, the Brown movement, the diffraction of light, the
adiabatic processes, radioactivity, as well as all the others, I cannot think
of now, or, in other words, the whole Universe.
THE TOTAL PERSPECTIVE VORTEX
The Hitchhiker’s
Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
Following
the principle of proportion, we can ask a question, that definitely will drive
Leon Letherman mad /when talking about The
dancing masters of Mu-Shu/, and this, I admit, will give me much pleasure,
especially if this quant-abuse of mine turns out to be quant-pleasing. And so –
are there any parallel worlds? If we follow our arguments, we could see that
the answer to that question might be found in the very beginning of this paper.
It only has to be stated /as far as we can manage with it/. The only thing that can be said for now is
this: the number of the parallel dimensions is in an inverse proportion to the
KB. Fig. 4 is the final variant of fig. 2, where Z shows the number of the
possible dimensions, but there are no guarantees that all that is mathematically
assumed will exist physically.
(fig. 4)
Each
dimension can be described by a KB curve, identical to that on fig. 2 with a
corresponding beginning. Theoretically, the dimensions extrapolated one over
another in a 2D coordinate system, for a certain value of KB, will be at the
shortest possible distance from each other /fig. 5/. And that’s exactly the
distance between two neighbouring gluons. Their number depends on the lowest
possible value of KB, if there are limits at all. A certain distinction between
parallel dimensions and other
dimensions should
be made. In the first case, we examine different curves with a common
beginning. In the second case, we examine different parts of the curve on fig.
2.
Parallel dimensions
The distance, expressed with the space between two
subsequent states of movement of a certain object or an elementary particle, examined
at the second level of reflection, is, in fact, a line with occupied gluons at
its beginning and end and free gluons at its extensions. The length of this
line depends on KB in an inverse proportion. The free gluons can be occupied by
the quarks of another object or particle without interacting with each other,
i.e. they are not observed directly one next to the other /fig. 5/. At a KB,
which equals or is very close to one, the parallel dimensions intersect, i.e.
they have a common beginning.
(fig. 5)
Other dimensions
Objects
or particles with a different KB are characterized by different distances
between two subsequent states at the second level of reflection. And so, they
are not observed directly one next to the other. Intersections /interactions
and disturbances of the principle of proportion/ are possible at certain
proportions of the lines’ length. The areas of intersection /fig. 6/ are the
reason why, for example, we observe the light and, better say, its quanting,
wave length and diffraction.
(fig. 6)
Quarks and gluons
It's important to be mentioned, that, when I use the word
"gluon" here, I don't guarantee that it is the right term or the right
particle. My very aim here is to create a model for reflection, in which the
names don't matter. The gluon-quarks scheme is rather an exemplary model, too.
What
we agreed that is true so far, is indeed very difficult to be believed in. I
explained it to myself in this way: the gluons consist of at least three
particles, arranged and connected to each other like in the water molecule. One
of the particles attracts the quarks /if it is some kind of power, it lies in
the basis of a force that we know/. The other two particles carry negative and
positive electrical charge. Their never stopping rotation provides them with
the preservation of the same distances, i.e. with the lack of
"pressure". We cannot explain the reason of their initial rotation,
but we can suppose that the Universe has an end and its boundaries are the
gatherings of gluons, like the water molecules in a drop of water at zero
gravity.
In
fact, this, even as a supposition, is silly enough and it would save us a lot
of energy if we leave this problem for now. On the other hand, the nature of
such gluon gatherings raises certain questions, which have to be answered. Is
their volume likely to change and if it is, does it increase?
If
the answers to these questions are positive, then we should revert to the
statement that each "independent" object moves with constant
deceleration. But if we assume that the Universe has a beginning, like the
forming of some kind of a gluon heap, likely to disperse, the quarks-gluons and
particles-bodies interactions make their movements relative. Or:
Each independent object moves with a constant deceleration in
relation to the first law of mechanics and with a constant acceleration in
relation to the dispersion of the gluon heap.
The
two statements have no relation to each other and they do not depend on each
other. However, the term itself, the gluon heap, presupposes that the lowest KB
value still has its limits, set by the limits of the volume.
Whether
the gluons are comparatively immovable in relation to each other or they
"disperse", does not mean that the whole gathering is not moving in
the tremendously
infinite, infinitely tremendous, dimensionlessly spaceless, speck-like void. If this is so, the term absolute zero speed will turn out to be a temporary term – infinite
from all points of view.
Mr.
Adams, your "total perspective vortex" is actually working.
The comparison seems enough to me. And still the
inevitable question is: is there any reason for the lack of other similar gatherings
and what has God to do with all this? A lot, we can answer the last one, but
perhaps it's time to move His throne somewhere else.
However, the number of similar gatherings is maybe
infinite – an infinite number of "eggs" moving at infinite speeds out
of time which are likely to make an impact and thus start a new Universe. But
this, for now, is beyond our reach.
GRAVITY
An
object at the second level of reflection /interactions and a total lack of
movement/ leads, following the arguments so far, to disturbances in the
geometrical structure or, in other words, in the homogeneity of the near gluons
/outside the object/. This presupposes the formation of particular "gluon
vortexes", as a result of the inertia, if we assume, that the gluon heap
is moving in the VOID. The vortexes lead to a twisting of space, obtain
considerable differences in the distances between neighbouring gluons in
relation to the rest in the heap. It's a statement that excludes gravity. Every
subsequent state of the object at the second level of reflection moves the
vortexes radially round itself as a result of the rotation. If we examine the
same object under the conditions of the third level of reflection we will come
across to, what we are used to call, the gravity field.
Areas, that contain gluon
vortexes, change the common KB of an intersecting object /deformity/ or: 
, where 
is a factor that sets
the difference in the distances between the neighbouring gluons. It depends on
the mass and the velocity of a certain object or a system of different
objects. The mass is defined by the
inertia as a result of the gluons "catching" quarks. So, the extent
of the gravity force and the amount of mass should depend on the speed of
movement in an inverse proportion, i.e. the amount of mass decreases but not
increases, as it is in accordance with the Relativity
theory. However, the problem with anti-gravity can be defined and therefore
solved.
A section of the gravity field
It is defined mainly by two factors.
The total direction of the object's movement and the direction of dispersion of
the gluon heap. If we examine the section in one plane at the third level of
reflection, its shape will be roughly the one shown on fig. 7. The 
factor will be
different at different points of the section. The shape changes as a result of
each object's orbital movement. The mess becomes complete, when the deformity
of the object as a result of the interaction with foreign gluon vortexes is
included as well.
(fig. 7)
ELECTRONS
It is believed, that
they, like the rest of the lepton family, are indivisible matter /do not
contain any other particles/. If this is true, everything, that has been said till
now, will make no sense. This, of course, is not out of question, but still
there are enough examples of an electron's behavior, that imply its
divisibility. On the other hand, that is not so important in terms of this
hypothesis.
In my opinion, the probability interpretation of the wave
function works, but it is not important, since it is a look at the Universe,
concerning only the third level of reflection. Not to mention that "God
doesn't play dice" /A. Einstein/.
Using the standard model of the atom, but abandoning the
accepted laws and arguments, with the risk to finally discredit myself, I
believe that the state of a certain macro-system is identified mainly with the
state of the nucleus. The argument is that the electron covers a considerably
greater distance in space than the atom itself, which leads to differences in
the KB values /or, perhaps, identical values with different "tension"
as a result of the forced interactions/. It can be assumed, that the nucleus'
and the electron's existences differ to some extent, i.e. the nucleus and the
electron affect each other, concerning the directions of interactions /vector
interactions/. In other words, they play hide-and-seek and catch-me forever.
The atom model with defining speed and direction of motion is the result of
their play. The electron wouldn't move in a circle. If we could examine the
motion of the atom's particles in space it would follow the trajectory of the
twisted spiral of the DNA. By the way, this analogy makes me question myself
about the relation between the DNA and astrology. But that's another subject.
In my opinion, the differences between the nucleus' and
the electron's existence are the reason of the misunderstanding, called
leptons.
MOLECULES
Following the model, described above, the vector
interactions are determinant both in the atom system itself and the system of
several atoms, which forms a molecule. Where the nucleus of one atom interacts
electro-magnetically with the electrons of another atom. Here, again we see the
principle of proportion.
ZERO
OBJECTS AND SUPER-NOVAS
The matter of the first kind – it obtains absolute
zero speed, i.e. it lacks free gluons within its volume, zero
time, zero gravity /or one-way gravity, depending on the direction of
dispersion of the gluon heap/, absolute density, absolute transperancy. Such an
object cannot be hit or touched by another /particle/, since it will pass right
through it and the energy of the quarks-gluons attraction will transform completely
into kinetic energy. Depending on the volume of the zero object and the KB of
the moving body, the latter in no time will receive a new, considerably lower
KB or it will move to another dimension, or both – teleportation.
Moreover,
it's important that we have in mind the size of the show, if we succeed in the
experiment of "pushing" such a zero object. We would have to look for
it somewhere far on the right part of the KB curve. The same will happen, I
guess, if the moving object is big enough and the energy transformed is greater
than the Zero energy, i.e. at a certain proportion between the zero object's
volume, the mass and the KB of the moving object.
STARS
Let us examine an object that has "decided" to
become a star. As a result of the gravity, somewhere at the intersection of the
rotation axes the pressure is big enough to disarrange the fixed geometrical
structure of matter. As a result the principle of proportion is broken to such
extent, that the teleportation of matter at the shortest distance to a
neighbouring area in the object itself, where the density is not so high,
becomes possible. The so moved matter, keeping its parameters at the moment of
materialization, can break the principle of proportion in a certain area. A
chain reaction is started, not at nuclear level, but at quarks level where the
powers are much bigger, i.e. we cannot expect to run out of star fuel. The
losses of the matter are different types of radiation, defined by the principle
of proportion at the moment of their formation /they are set by the KB, the
rotation speed, the pressure, which depends on the mass and the radius/, i.e.
it can be assumed, that at different points of the object's radius different
waves /radiations/ occur.
Having
in mind the level of the processes in stars it can be assumed, that these are
objects that exist in more than one dimensions, i.e. in our solar system the
number of the planets may be bigger.
BLACK
HOLES
If a certain object obtains the common features of a
black hole, it inevitably would "ignite" and continue its life but as
a star. But in such case, why should a star bother itself to collapse, i.e. there
are no black holes, except next to Shroedinger's cat. The objects
that we describe as black holes are in fact nothing more than bodies with a KB
close to one.
MATTER
AND LIGHT
If
we consider the zero object as matter of the First kind, the moving objects –
as matter of the Second, we could consider light as matter of the Third kind, situated
far in the right part of the scheme.
We have already assumed, that all of the moving objects
move with a constant deceleration as a result of the "friction" with
the gluons /which surely keeps each object's own temperature, that depend on
the density and the KB, which means that the Earth will never grow cold/. The
particles, that form the matter of the Secong kind, consist of three quarks and
the photon - of two. Therefore, it can
be supposed, that at a KB which is low enough the matter will "lose"
a certain quark /?/, i.e. at a KB which is low enough each object disperses
into photons, if we examine it from our part of the curve. It is interesting,
what will happen if we succeed in slowing down the speed of light and examine
the "filling" of the photons with quarks. In other words – spectral
alchemy.
INDEX
of the used terms
gluons – I use this word with the
very aim to create a model for reflection, in which the names don't matter. The
gluon-quarks scheme is rather an exemplary model, too;
gluon heap – gathering of gluons that
form the Universe we know within the boundaries of their volume;
gluon vortexes - as a result of the object's
inertia under the conditions of the second level of reflection gluon vortexes
are formed that obtain considerable differences in the distances between
neighbouring gluons in relation to the rest in the heap. They are situated radially as a result of
the rotation of the objects. It might me described as a twisting of space;
gravity – phenomenon, in which areas containing
gluon vortexes change the common KB of the intersecting object or: 
, where 
is a factor that sets
the difference in the distances between the neighbouring gluons;
critical speed
limits – those
limitations which concern the realization of a certain condition, e.g. the
Universe we know;
certain fragment of
space – proportionate
to the distance between two neighbouring gluons;
principle of time
saving – similar
to the principle of energy saving and an inevitable consequence of everything
we've said;
areas of
intersection – proportionately
intersecting points between different areas of the KB curve that fix the
interactions in the powers /phenomena/ we know;
time ratio /KB/ - The length of the intervals
defines space and depends on energy. Their number for a certain fragment of
space defines time. Both variables depend on speed. The KB is the ratio between
them. Or: 
, where 
is the distance
between two neighbouring gluons and 
is the number of
intervals /vibrations, matter frequency/. The KB cannot equal zero outside the
coordinate system;
principle of
proportion – all
distances in the Cosmos are proportionate to the distance between two
neighbouring gluons, all interactions obey the geometrical structure of gluons'
arrangement and whether they are occupied;
matter – three functions that
describe matter and form the features of the KB curve /fig. 2/ can be deduced:
§
matter of the first kind – zero matter, obtaining
absolute zero speed, i.e. it lacks free gluons within its volume, zero time,
zero gravity /or one-way gravity, depending on the direction of dispersion of
the gluon heap/, absolute density, absolute transperancy, or: 
;
§
matter of the second kind - 
;
§
matter of the third kind – light or: 
, where 
is the number of
subsequent fragments of space, enough for 
;
tremendously
infinite, infinitely tremendous, dimensionlessly spaceless, speck-like void – or the NOTHING;
teleportation – unforced
– the way of particles/bodies between two subsequent states at the
second level of reflection, when the first law of mechanics is kept; forced – under any other condition
defined by breaking the principle of proportion like: moving in time, moving in
space, other dimension, parallel dimension;
levels of reflection – it's more a philosophical
notion, which suggests division of the point of view, where:
§
first level – motion;
§
second level - interactions and the total lack of movement,
concerning the elementary particles;
§
third level - a total of subsequent second level states; the
difference between them is the smallest possible change;
EXPERIMENTS
with results that
can be predicted, which support the Short Theory of Time
1. If we add a second ionizing cell to the
standard setting for observation of the photo effect as shown on fig. 8, we
have the reason to believe that in cell 2 there will be teleported particles.
The distance L is a constant value depending on the KB /it is probably a few
meters/. It is important that during the experiment the angle between the L
vector and the vector of light should be kept in mind. The barrier is not so important.
(fig. 8)
2. An object is placed under a strong
enough electro-magnetic field and rotates round its axis with quick enough revolutions
/acceleration/; its axis must be at Da angle
with the lines of the field /fig. 9/. The axis x must be fixed in accordance
with the lines of the Earth's mass and magnetic field and the mass of the
object. Such conditions suggest breaking of the principle of proportion, which
at certain values of a could be: forced radioactivity or the
opposite, moving in time and/or space, other dimension, parallel dimension. I
would not make any comments on the possible use of this method. I believe that
God would not allow us to make such a rash and unconsidered intervention in the
Universe.
(fig. 9)
3. The synthesis of extremely unstable
isotopes under absolutely identical conditions at different latitude would
determine different duration of their existence. Probably it has been already
done.
|
last update - 31.03.2002 |