John Baez Crackpot Watch: Calls Ed Witten A Crackpot

[astro]

Everyone has heard of John Baez's Crackpot Index.

We need more civil discourse in physics these days--not Baez's snarky name-calling.

On behalf of ST and LQG and all other professionally-researched theories, I would like to request that Baez take his distasteful, snarky Crackpot Index off of the venerable UCR's web page.

What Baez's crackpot index has to do with advancing physics, we have no idea. It seems both snarky and mean-spirited to call Ed Witten, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, and Kip Thorne crackpots. Maybe Lubos deserves it, but does that justify it?

Has Baez ever advanced physics. Or tried to?

The time has come for him to lay his cards on the table. What are his new ideas? Does he have any other than the ace of snark, the jack of smugness, and the king of crackpottery?

Maybe he would be better off actually trying to advance physics, rather than spending day after day criticizing the pioneering work of Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, and Kip Thorne.

Anyway--here we can keep track of John Baez's influenential, famous, and esteemed Crackpot Index-- a big hit amongst all the pomo-hipster-insiders--surely one of the greatest contributions by a modern pomo-hipster snarky-snark, posing as a physics god.

Did Einstein ever call anyone a crackpot?

Did Newton?

Did Feyman?

Did Bohr?

Did Fermi?

Did Wheeler?

Did Smolin?

Did Greene?

Did Kaku?

Did Dirac?

Did Peebles?

Did Planck?

Did Heisenberg?

No--they didn't advance physics by bringing other people down.

They advanced physics by thinking, by postulating via logic, reason, and common sense.

They did it by holding eternal ideals superior to pomo-hipster snarkfests.

Why does Baez derive so much pleasure from calling people derogatory names, instead of doing physics?

google.com/search?hl=en&q=john+baez+crackpot

john_m_burt.blogspot.com/2006/12/john-baezs-crackpot-index.html

mountainman.com.au/news95_e.html

physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=149345

kuro5hin.org/story/2006/10/31/161746/39

Here is Baez's crackpot index that has fun at the expense of witten, Greene, Kaku, Randall, Smolin, and every other visionary, original thinker, visionary and risk taker:

The Crackpot Index

John Baez

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Both string theory and LQG are hit hard by this. And spinors too.

It seems both snarky and mean-spirited to call Ed Witten, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, and Kip Thorne crackpots.

Baez even calls Hawking a crackpot--he shows no mercy. And he misspells famous physicist's names, as if it's funny.

Well, we're looking forward to some of Baez's reflections on the foundations of physics, which can perhaps be uses to replace the page with the crackpot index.

[astro]

here baez is again, firing away at string theory and loop quantum gravity--commanding bloggers to rage away at Ed Witten, Lee Smolin, and other geniuses whose beauty he cannot comprehend:

physicsbuzz.blogspot.com/2006/10/string-theory-loop-quantum-gravity-and.html

i think it's high time baez offered all the recipients of the MacArthur Genius awards apologies.

is he jealous that he did not get one?

why must he spend so much time criticizing starving artists and bold entrepreneurs such as Ed Witten, Roger Penrose, and Lee smolin?

just you wait and see--the LHC will prove them all right.

[astro]

50 Cent on John Baez's Crackpot Index

Here's what 50 Cent has to say to the high-falutin' John Baez & his crackpot index, which John Baez et al use to retard the advancement of Science, and replace it with String Theory and LQG, and other forms of professional, institutionalized crackpottery.

x

[astro]

50 Cent on John Baez's Crackpot Index

Here's what 50 Cent has to say to the high-falutin' John Baez & his crackpot index, which John Baez et al use to retard the advancement of Science, and replace it with String Theory and LQG, and other forms of professional, institutionalized crackpottery.

You shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house and if you got a glass jaw, you should watch yo mouth:


en.thinkexist.com/quotation/you-shouldn-t-throw-stones-if-you-live-in-a-glass/763340.html

Also, in the opneing of his book FROM PIECES TO WEIGHT, Fifty writes,
it's all about back to getting rich--or trying to do so. This is nothing new. You can find pretty much the same sentiments in all sorts of philosophies--Samurai codes and sh-- like that. If Confucius says it, it's wisdom. But when 50 Cent says it, he's being negative.--FROM PIECES TO WEIGHT by 50 Cent


When John Baez studies quantum gravity, with no experimentally-verified equations, nor postulates, nor concrete advancement in the realm of physics, nor lasting contribution to the field after twenty years, he's a genius.

When anyone else contemplates the unviverse, they're a crackpot.

When Baez's students write papers on gravity and hamsters, it's wisdom.

When Ed Witten contemplates the universe, he's a crackpot.

When John Baez thunders down from his mountain that the world is filled with crackpots, he's a genius.

When anyone questions John Baez, they're a crackpot.

So it is, that instead of physics, the crackpot index has become the pomo-hipster physicist's most valuable tool in gaining power and tenture.

And Lee Smolin thus writes a chapter in THE TROUBLE WITH PHYSICS--THE RISE OF STRING THEORY, THE FALL OF SCIENCE, AND WHAT COMES NEXT entitled, "How do you fight sociology?"

Baez calls Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Ed Witten, and Michio Kaku crackpots.

He calls Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin crackpots.

We have but one question.

What does Baez call himself?

His main research area appears to be quantum gravity and "foam" or something--both of which register way high on his very own crackpot scale.

Is there any lasting contribution to physics here:
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/ ?

Why are Baez and his peers so snarky and condescending?

I hope that in 2007 Baez will take his crackpot index down, in honor of Einstein and Feynman, and every other pioneering physicist who was bold enough to think differently--to take a chance on Truth.

For physics has never been advanced by Baez's snarkiness, but by the pioneering individual.

"Every inventor is a crackpot until his idea succeeds." ­ --Mark Twain.

Einstein also counters Baez's snarky crackpot index with his noble words:

“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it” --Einstein

Contrast John Baez's snarky crackpot index with the humble nobility of Eistein's encouragement to think differently.

the humble Eisntein tells us that the gods are laughing at Baez.

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” --Einstein

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” --Einstein

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”--Einstein

Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. --Einstein

Baez would have been one of those physicists calling Boltzman and Einstein crackpots; and then turning right around and promoting his own crackpottery as the gospel truth.

[SmithWillSuffice]

Just came across this rant on the topic of Baez's crackpot index.
Is this serious? As someone who admires John's playfulness and attitude I had to risk being consired a fool :o by taking the above rantings seriously and replying with a little apology on JB's behalf.

Clearly the crackpot index on JB's webpages is meant to be a humourous way of rating the "potentially revolutionary contributions to physics". So it's the opposite of what one would naively think of as a "crackpot" rating. The idea behind the "crackpot index" clearly alludes to Pauli's "we all agree this is a crazy idea, but is it crazy enough?". So Baez is really saying that those who rate highly on his crackpot scale are those who, in his opinion, are attempting the revolutionary thinking needed to advance physics :) ---the exact opposite of what 'astro' is insinuating.

OK, so the jokes on me if the author above meant to draw attention to the list by some sort of twisted sarcasm. :o I just wanted to make sure the unwary reader of this thread was not fooled into thinking ill of JB.

[Epsilon=One]

Clearly the crackpot index on JB's webpages is meant to be a humourous way of rating the "potentially revolutionary contributions to physics". So it's the opposite of what one would naively think of as a "crackpot" rating. The idea behind the "crackpot index" clearly alludes to Pauli's "we all agree this is a crazy idea, but is it crazy enough?". So Baez is really saying that those who rate highly on his crackpot scale are those who, in his opinion, are attempting the revolutionary thinking needed to advance physics :)Theoretical, academic physics need more exposure, especially among laypersons, of its alternative concepts.

Certainly, "Standard Model" concepts are inadequate.

If John Baez can accomplish such exposure, more power to him.

If there is choice, I wear the label of "crackpot" with great honor.

[astro]

Physicists who never had snarky crackpot indexes:

Einstein
Newton
Bohr
Fermi
Heisenberg
Feynman
Brillouin
Wheeler
Dirac
Smolin
Woit
Motl
Witten
Bruno
Copernicus
Aristole
Plato
Galileo
Boltzman

Bruno was burned to death by the ruling elite for beaing a crackpot.

Galileo was put under house arrest for being a crackpot.

Einstein was denied jobs for being a crackpot.

Boltzman committed suicide--the Baez's of his day all called him a crackpot. On his tombsone is S=klogw.

In the past thirty years, Lee Smolin has noted (in the Trouble With Physics) that there has been no progress in physics.

This is because elite federally-funded physicisits such as Baez spend all their time snarking rising physicists with their crackpot index.

Baez could devote the page new theories, such as Moving Dimensions Theory, but instead he has chosen to put up a page where he calls people crackpots.

That is a fact.

He must derive great pleasure from calling people crackpots, to have come up with such an eloquent point system.

Smolin also points out that many physicists did not get the girl in high school, and thus they come up with things such as string theory and crackpot indexes to return the hate for the rest of their lives.

The greater physics community would like to encourage Baez to replace his crackpot index with a list of leading physical theories.

It's not right that a tax and tuition funded professor should be given a platform to tear others down, when they themselves have never contributed an original idea.

Again, this is why, as Smolin has noted, there has been no progress in physics for the past thirty years.

Please get back to us when Baez has removed his mean-spirited, distasteful crackpot index.











Just came across this rant on the topic of Baez's crackpot index.
Is this serious? As someone who admires John's playfulness and attitude I had to risk being consired a fool :o by taking the above rantings seriously and replying with a little apology on JB's behalf.

Clearly the crackpot index on JB's webpages is meant to be a humourous way of rating the "potentially revolutionary contributions to physics". So it's the opposite of what one would naively think of as a "crackpot" rating. The idea behind the "crackpot index" clearly alludes to Pauli's "we all agree this is a crazy idea, but is it crazy enough?". So Baez is really saying that those who rate highly on his crackpot scale are those who, in his opinion, are attempting the revolutionary thinking needed to advance physics :) ---the exact opposite of what 'astro' is insinuating.

OK, so the jokes on me if the author above meant to draw attention to the list by some sort of twisted sarcasm. :o I just wanted to make sure the unwary reader of this thread was not fooled into thinking ill of JB.

[astro]

Just came across this rant on the topic of Baez's crackpot index.

Is this serious? As someone who admires John's playfulness and attitude I had to risk being consired a fool :o by taking the above rantings seriously and replying with a little apology on JB's behalf.

Clearly the crackpot index on JB's webpages is meant to be a humourous way of rating the "potentially revolutionary contributions to physics". So it's the opposite of what one would naively think of as a "crackpot" rating. The idea behind the "crackpot index" clearly alludes to Pauli's "we all agree this is a crazy idea, but is it crazy enough?". So Baez is really saying that those who rate highly on his crackpot scale are those who, in his opinion, are attempting the revolutionary thinking needed to advance physics :) ---the exact opposite of what 'astro' is insinuating.

OK, so the jokes on me if the author above meant to draw attention to the list by some sort of twisted sarcasm. :o I just wanted to make sure the unwary reader of this thread was not fooled into thinking ill of JB.

I don't understand how you can say Einstein is ranting:

Why are Baez and his peers so snarky and condescending?

I hope that in 2007 Baez will take his crackpot index down, in honor of Einstein and Feynman, and every other pioneering physicist who was bold enough to think differently--to take a chance on Truth.

For physics has never been advanced by Baez's snarkiness, but by the pioneering individual.

"Every inventor is a crackpot until his idea succeeds." ­ --Mark Twain.

Einstein also counters Baez's snarky crackpot index with his noble words:

“If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it” --Einstein

Contrast John Baez's snarky crackpot index with the humble nobility of Eistein's encouragement to think differently.

the humble Eisntein tells us that the gods are laughing at Baez.

“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” --Einstein

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” --Einstein

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.”--Einstein

Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds. --Einstein

Baez would have been one of those physicists calling Boltzman and Einstein crackpots; and then turning right around and promoting his own crackpottery as the gospel truth.

[astro]

Snary-snark Baez says that to criticize or question the crackpot index means you are a crackpot--I bet he got tenure for this, for as Smolin noted, snarky-snark cleverness trumps physics:

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Theoretical, academic physics need more exposure, especially among laypersons, of its alternative concepts.

Certainly, "Standard Model" concepts are inadequate.

If John Baez can accomplish such exposure, more power to him.

If there is choice, I wear the label of "crackpot" with great honor.

[astro]

Well, since you know Baez, have him drop on by here to talk about physics sometime.

I'm tired of talking about, hearing about, and seeing his snarky crackpot index everywhere, so please have him take it down and apologize to Boltzman and Bruno.

Baez is welcome here any time, as long as he wants to talk about physics.

Just came across this rant on the topic of Baez's crackpot index.
Is this serious? As someone who admires John's playfulness and attitude I had to risk being consired a fool :o by taking the above rantings seriously and replying with a little apology on JB's behalf.

Clearly the crackpot index on JB's webpages is meant to be a humourous way of rating the "potentially revolutionary contributions to physics". So it's the opposite of what one would naively think of as a "crackpot" rating. The idea behind the "crackpot index" clearly alludes to Pauli's "we all agree this is a crazy idea, but is it crazy enough?". So Baez is really saying that those who rate highly on his crackpot scale are those who, in his opinion, are attempting the revolutionary thinking needed to advance physics :) ---the exact opposite of what 'astro' is insinuating.

OK, so the jokes on me if the author above meant to draw attention to the list by some sort of twisted sarcasm. :o I just wanted to make sure the unwary reader of this thread was not fooled into thinking ill of JB.

[astro]

Just came across this rant on the topic of Baez's crackpot index.
Is this serious? As someone who admires John's playfulness and attitude I had to risk being consired a fool :o by taking the above rantings seriously and replying with a little apology on JB's behalf.

Clearly the crackpot index on JB's webpages is meant to be a humourous way of rating the "potentially revolutionary contributions to physics". So it's the opposite of what one would naively think of as a "crackpot" rating. The idea behind the "crackpot index" clearly alludes to Pauli's "we all agree this is a crazy idea, but is it crazy enough?". So Baez is really saying that those who rate highly on his crackpot scale are those who, in his opinion, are attempting the revolutionary thinking needed to advance physics :) ---the exact opposite of what 'astro' is insinuating.

OK, so the jokes on me if the author above meant to draw attention to the list by some sort of twisted sarcasm. :o I just wanted to make sure the unwary reader of this thread was not fooled into thinking ill of JB.

Riddle me this Batman--how many points does MDT get on the crackpot scale?

If it scores high enough, please have Baez send some of his NSF cash my way, as after all, the higher the score, the better science it is.

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions.

This simple postulate offers a physical model underlying and unifiying:

RELATIVITY:

1) length contraction
2) time dilation
3) the equivalence of mass and energy
4) the constant velocity of light
5) the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source

QUANTUMN MECHANICS
1) action at a distance
2) wave-particle duality
3) interference phenomena
4) EPR paradox

THERMODYNAMICS
1) Time's arrow
2) Entropy

STRING THEORY'S MANY DIMENSIONS / KALUZA/KLEIN THEORY
1) a fourth expanding dimension can be interepreted as many dimensions, each time it expands

THE UNITY OF THE DUALITIES
1) wave/particle duality
2) time/space duality
3) energy/mass duality
4) E/B duality

GENERAL RELATIVITY
1) Gravitational redshift
2) Gravity waves
3) Gravitation attraction

THE SPACE-TIME BACKGROUND
1) quantum foam
2) the smearing of space and time at small distances
3) Hawking's imaginary time

PARADOXES
1) MDT explains away Godel's Block Universe
2) MDT unfreezes time
3) Resolves Zeno's Paradox

ONE GETS ALL OF THIS FROM A SIMPLE POSTULATE:

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions in a sphereically symmetric manner, in units of the Planck length, at the rate of c.

This means that every point in three dimnesional space is always expanding into a fourth dimensional sphere with a radius of the plank length. A photon is mater caught on the surface of this quantized expansion, and thus energy is quantized. The expansion of the fourth dimension occurs at the rate of c, and thus he velocity of all photons is c.

Check out the t-shirt with a simple proof of MDT:

http://www.cafepress.com/autumnrangers.72464949

"The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at the speed of light through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c relative to the three spatial dimenions."

How sad it is that when truth stares modern physicists in the face, they must close their eyes so as to get a postdoc or raise more funds for String Theory.

Moving Dimensions Theory is in complete agreement with all
experimental tests and phenomena associated with special and general relativity. MDT is in complete agreement with all physical phenomena as predicted by quantum mechanics and demonstrated in extensive experiments. The genius and novelty of MDT is that it presents a common physical model which shows that phenomena from both relativity and quantum mechanics derive from the same fundamental physical reality.

Nowhere does String Theory nor Loop Quantum Gravity account for quantum entanglement nor relativistic time dilation. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for wave-particle duality nor relativistic length contraction. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does ST nor LQG account for the constant speed of light, nor the independence of the speed of light on the velocity of the source, nor entropy, nor time's arrow. MDT shows these derive from the same underlying physical reality. Nowhere does String Theory nor
Loop Quantum Gravity resolve the paradox of Godel's Block Universe which troubled Eisntein. MDT resolves this paradox.

Simply put, MDT replaces the contemporary none-theories with a physical theory, complete with a simple postulate that unifies
formerly disparate phenomena within a simple context.

THE GENERAL POSTULATE
OF DYNAMIC DIMENSIONS THEORY
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions.

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
-Albert Einstein

But after thirty years of the absurdity of String Theory, millions of
dollars from the NSF, and billions of complementary dollars from tax
and tuition and endowments spent on killing physics and indie
physicists, perhaps it's time for something that makes sense-for a
physical theory that actually accounts for a deeper reality from which
both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, from which time, entanglement,
gravity, entropy, interference, the constant speed of light,
relativistic time dilation, length contraction, and the equivalence of
mass and energy emerge. It's time for Moving Dimensions Theory-MDT.
-The Physicist with No Name

I know what you're thinking. Did he say there were thirty-six
dimensions or only thirty-five? Well to tell you the truth in all this
excitement I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .45
Revolver-the most powerful hand gun in the world and would blow your
head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question--Do I feel
lucky? Well, do ya punk!? -Clint Eastwood

I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more
likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood

Go ahead. Make my day. -Clint Eastwood

MDT IN BRIEF
Without further adieu, allow me to present the beauty and elegance of
MDT by showing both its simplicity and far-reaching ability to account
for and answer fundamental questions. All of the below will be
elaborated on throughout the book.

Questions Addressed by MDT:

Why does light have a maximum, constant speed independent of the
source? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions. A photon is momenergy that exists orthogonal to
the three spatial dimensions. It is carried along by the expanding
fourth dimension. So no matter how fast the source is moving when the
photon is emitted, the photon travels at the rate with which the
fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. Thus c is always independent of the movement of the
source.

Why are light and energy quantized? The fourth dimension is expanding
in a quantized manner relative to the three spatial dimensions. Light
and energy are matter rotated completely into the fourth expanding
dimension, and as it expands in a quantized manner, light and energy
are thus quantized.

Why is the velocity of light constant in all frames? Time is an
emergent phenomena that arises because the fourth dimension is
expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. The flow of time
is inextricably wed to the emission and propagation of photons. In all
biological, mechanical, and electronic clocks, the emission and
propagation of photons is what determines time. The velocity of light
is always measured with respect to time, which is inextricably linked
to the velocity of light. This tautology ensures that the velocity of
light, measured relative to the velocity of light, will always be the
same.

How can photons display both wave and particle properties? The
fundamental photon propagates as a spherical wave-front, surfing the
fourth expanding dimension. This is because the fourth expanding
dimension appears as a spherical wavefront as it expands through the
three spatial dimensions. The act of measurement localizes the
photon's momenergy, taking it out of the expanding fourth dimension
and trapping it in the three stationary spatial dimensions, and it
appears as a localized particle, trapped by electrons as it blackens a
grain on a photographic plate.

How can matter display both wave and particle properties? The
fundamental electron is abuzz with photons. Photons are continually
being emitted into the fourth expanding dimension and reabsorbed by
the electron. The continual dance with these photons gives the
electron its wave properties. Nothing moves without photons which up
the net probability that the combine momenergy will be in the
expanding fourth dimension. The more photons one adds to an object,
the greater the chance it has of existing in the expanding fourth
dimension, and thus it moves.

Why are there non-local effects in quantum mechanics? The fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. That
means that what begins as a point in the fourth dimension is a sphere
with a 186,000 mile radius one second later. So it is that the entire
spherical wavefront of the photon exists in the exact same place in
time. Hence the non-locality observed in double slit experiments, the
EPR effect, and quantum entanglement. Take two interacting spin ½
photons and let them propagate at the speed of c in opposite
directions. They are yet at the exact same place in time! And too,
they are yet in the exact same place of the fourth expanding
dimension.

Why does time stop at the speed of light?
Time depends on the emission and propagation of photons. If no photons
are emitted, time does not occur. This holds true whether the clock is
an unwinding copper spring, a biological system such as a heart, or an
oscillating quartz crystal. No photom emission=no time! As an object
approaches the speed of light, its ability to emit photons without
reabsorbing them diminishes. An object traveling at the speed of light
cannot emit a photon.

How come a photon does not age?
A photon represents momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth
expanding dimension. A photon stays the exact same place in the fourth
dimension, no matter how far it travels. A photon stays the exact same
place in time, no matter how far it travels. Again, time is not the
fourth dimension, but in inherits properties of the fourth dimension.

Why are inertial mass and gravitational mass the same thing?

Why do moving bodies exhibit length contraction?
Movement is always accompanied by a shortening in length. This is
because the only way for a body to move is for it to undergo a
rotation into the forth dimension, which is expanding relative to the
three spatial dimensions. The more energy an electron has, the more
photons it possesses, and the higher probability it exists in the
expanding fourth dimension. Hence its length appears contracted as
perceived from the three spatial dimensions.

Why are mass and energy equivalent?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions. That means that a baseball sitting on a lab table
stationary in our three-dimensional inertial reference frame, is yet
moving at a fantastic velocity relative to the fourth dimension. Hence
every seemingly stationary mass has a vast energy, as given by E=mc2.
In a nuclear reaction matter is rotated into the expanding fourth
dimension, appearing as high-enegry photons (gamma rays) propagating
at the same velocity of the fourth expanding dimension-c.

Why does time's arrow point in the direction it points in? The fourth
dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. Hence
every photon naturally expands in a spherically symmetric manner.
Hence every electron, or piece of matter that interacts with photons,
is naturally carried outward from a central point in a spherically
symmetric manner. Hence the particles in a drop of dye in a swimming
pool dissipate in a spherically symmetric manner, and are never
reunited. Hence time's arrow and entropy.

Why do photons appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts traveling at
a velocity c? The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three
spatial dimensions at the velocity c. Hence photons, which are tiny
packets of momenergy rotated entirely into the fourth dimension,
appear as spherically-symmetric wavefronts propagating at the velocity
c.

Why is there a minus sign in the following metric?
x^2+y^2+z^2-c^2t^2=s^2
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions at the velocity c. Hence the only way to stay still in the
space-time continuum, and to achieve a 0 interval, is to move with the
velocity of light.

What deeper reality underlies Einstein's postulates of relativity?
The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions at the velocity c. This single postulate assures that the
speed of light is constant for all observers and that the laws of
physics are the same in all inertial frames.

What deeper reality underlies Newton's laws?
Newton's laws are an approximation of relativity and quantum
mechanics, and as MDT underlies QM & relativity, it underlies Newton's
laws.

Why is an increase in velocity always accompanied by a decrease in
length as measured by an external observer? All increases in velocity
are accompanied by rotations into the fourth dimension. All particles
can be represented by momenergy 4-vectors. The greater the momenrgy
component in the expanding fourth dimension, the greater the velocity
and speed of the particle. Rest mass is the invariant here. It never
changes. It prefers the three spatial dimensions. In order for it to
move, one must gain energy in the form of photons. These photons
prefer the fourth expanding dimension. The more photons one adds, the
greater the component of the momenergy 4-vector that appears in the
fourth expanding dimension, the more energy the particle has, the
shorter it appears, and the faster it moves.

How MDT Is Aiding Fellow Physicists

"The conclusions from Bell's theorem are philosophically startling;
either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most
working scientists or dramatically revise our concept of space-time." -
Abner Shimony and John Clauser

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this new concept of space-time. The
vast ambitions of most tenure-track physicists, including string
theorists and LQG hypers, causes them to focus on irrelevant, minute
questions, and thus, though funded by millions for over thirty years,
have not yet been able to string the bow. Deeper, true physicists,
such as Abner Shimony and John Clauser are alert to the fact that
physics need news ideas.
The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be
at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the
new concept of space-time.

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the
apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and
fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and
relativity theories requires not just technical developments but
radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The
expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be
at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the
new concept of space-time.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of
quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

"For me, then, this is the real problem with quantum theory: the
apparently essential conflict between any sharp formulation and
fundamental relativity. It may be that a real synthesis of quantum and
relativity theories requires not just technical developments but
radical conceptual renewal." -John Bell

Moving Dimensions Theory provides this radical conceptual renewal. The
expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet appear to be
at the exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the
new concept of space-time.

"Entanglement is not one but rather the characteristic trait of
quantum mechanics." -Erwin Schrodinger

The expanding fourth dimension gives rise to non-local phenomena and
quantum entanglement, as the expanding fourth dimension means that two
events separated in the three spatial dimensions can yet be at the
exact same place in the fourth dimension. MDT thus provides the new
concept of space-time.

http://physicsmathforums.com

[Epsilon=One]

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.What exactly is the fourth dimension that MDT refers to?

Is MDT's fourth dimension in any way related to time, which must fundamentally be a constant?

Why does light have a maximum, constant speed independent of the source?How can the speed of light possibly be constant when all logic and long-term observation (red-shift (www.CQthus.com/PT/RS)) indicates otherwise?

How does MDT reconcile accelerating, galactic expansion with Cosmic entanglement?

Why are light and energy quantized?Why is space not quantized? MDT seems to indicate that there is a metaphysical continuum; something like the improbable space-time of general relativity.