proofs of moving dimensions thoery: einstein's thoughts on physics

[astro]

Various proofs of MDT & Einstein on the nature of physical theory:
Mathematical proof of MDT:
The spacetime interval is given as:
(x1)^2+(x1)^2+(x1)^2-(x4)^2=s^2
where
x4 = ct
take the derivative of both sides with respect to time, and we get:
d(x4)/dt = d(ct)/dt = c
Ergo d(x4)/dt = c
Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
Here are some conceptual proofs:
The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to travel at the velocity c through the fourth dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to travel at the velocity c through the three spatial dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
A rotation (or boost) into the fourth dimension is always accompanied by an increased velocity in the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.
All moving objects appear shortened in the direction they are traveling. This is because in order to propagate in the three spatial dimensions, an object must be partially rotated into the fourth dimension.
Picture a meter-stick at the end of a football field, parallel to the horizontal crossbar of the goalposts. If it rotates, it appears shorter and shorter to us, standing on the other end of the field.
Now if it were passing by us close to the velocity of light, it would also appear foreshortened, as it is rotated in the fourth epanidng dimension. This rotation occurs at a microscopic quantum level--each atom or quantum is rortated more into the fourth dimension, resulting in an overall foreshortening of the yardstick in the three spatial dimenion.
Velocity in the three spatial dimensions is always acompanied by forshortening in the three spatial dimensions, as more of the object exists in the fourth expanding dimension.
Rotate an object out of the three spatial dimensions and into the fourth expanding dimension, and it will gain velocity.
Pure energy, which moves at the highest vecocity possible--c--is matter trapped in the fourth expanding dimension. And thus E=mc^2 implies MDT.
Statistical mechanics, quantumn entaglement, entropy, time's arrows, wave-particle/time-space/energy-matter duality--all can easily be accounted for with MDT. MDT unfreezes time and shows that the main difference between quantum mechanics and general realtivity is that quantum mechanics views time as a dyamic variable, wheras GR freezes it. Both are right and valid and good.
The only thing MDT cannot explain are the well-funded fictions created by modern tenured pseudo-physicists; including multiverses, the anthropic principle, warped passages, the landscape, wormholes, and time travel.
Well, Moving Dimensions Theory provides a physical unification to quantum mechanics and general relativity. It does so in a simple and beautiful way. It provides a new physical theory, complete with a simple postulate, from which the rest of physics descends.
In his autobiography, the towering Einstein wrote:
"Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. However evident this demand may in the first place appear, its application turns out to be quite delicate. For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions. In any case, however, this first point of view is concerned with the confirmation of the theoretical foundation by the available empirical facts."
Unlike the multiverse/wormhole/landscape/warped passages propaganda, Moving Dimensions Theory agrees with all observations. Einstein continues:
"The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or "logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial. The problem here is not simply one of a kind of enumeration of the logically independent premises (if anything like this were at all unequivocally possible), but that of a kind of reciprocal weighing of in commeasurable qualities. Furthermore, among theories of equally "simple" foundation that one is to be taken as superior which most sharply delimits the qualities of system in the abstract (i.e., contains that most definite claims). Of the "realm" of theories I need not speak here, inasmuch as we are confining ourselves to such theories whose object is the totality of all physical appearances. The second point of view may briefly be characterized as concerning itself with the "inner perfection" of the theory, whereas the first point of view refers to the "external confirmation." The following I reckon as also belonging to the "inner perfection" of a theory: we prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint, it is not the result of an arbitrary choice among theories which, among themselves, are of equal value and analogously constructed. -Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume One, 1949, Autobiographical Notes, p 21-23, Open Court, Cambridge University Press.
Moving Dimensions Theory's premise possesses both "naturalness" and "logical simplicity." Unlike String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, Moving Dimensions Theory offers a postulate reflecting a simple physical model underlying physical reality.
MDT's postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimenions.
The MDT equation: d(x4)/dt = c
http://physicsmathforums.com

[Epsilon=One]

Moving Dimensions Theory's premise...Unlike String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, Moving Dimensions Theory offers a postulate reflecting a simple physical model underlying physical reality.How does Moving Dimension Theory (MDT) account for the fundamental concepts of String Theory (ST) and Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) that are observed within all phenomena; ie. ultra high speed oscillations and discrete quanta, wherein MDT seems to depend upon a "space-time" continuum and a "constant" motion that are nowhere observed within the Universe.

How can any theory be fundamental that doesn't rationalize how phenomena that exists emerges from non-existence? And, then . . . where it goes to. And, how does MDT address: what is the container that holds all the phenomena of existence?

What actually are the referred to "simple physical model" and "underlying physical reality"?

MDT's postulate: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimenions.
The MDT equation: d(x4)/dt = cWhat is the definition of MDT's "fourth dimension" that is expanding? How does it and "the three spatial dimensions" come into existence? How are these dimensions related to "time"; "fields"; and the gravitational phenomenon?

MDT's fundamental concepts are not apparant beyond a stated, unsupported postulate that is without any underlying reconciliation with observed fundamental phenomena. Something like Einstein stating that the speed of light is constant; and therefore, it is.

[astro]

the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c, in units of the planck length. Hence quantum oscillations. Time is an emergent phenonomena.


How does Moving Dimension Theory (MDT) account for the fundamental concepts of String Theory (ST) and Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) that are observed within all phenomena; ie. ultra high speed oscillations and discrete quanta, wherein MDT seems to depend upon a "space-time" continuum and a "constant" motion that are nowhere observed within the Universe.

How can any theory be fundamental that doesn't rationalize how phenomena that exists emerges from non-existence? And, then . . . where it goes to. And, how does MDT address: what is the container that holds all the phenomena of existence?

What actually are the referred to "simple physical model" and "underlying physical reality"?

What is the definition of MDT's "fourth dimension" that is expanding? How does it and "the three spatial dimensions" come into existence? How are these dimensions related to "time"; "fields"; and the gravitational phenomenon?

MDT's fundamental concepts are not apparant beyond a stated, unsupported postulate that is without any underlying reconciliation with observed fundamental phenomena. Something like Einstein stating that the speed of light is constant; and therefore, it is.

[InfiniteImprobability]

Hi! I've been reading up on MDT and it seems to make a lot of sense. Still, I have some questions...

1) If we don't need strings and membranes and 11 dimensions, why does the math work for strings?

2) Why does the 4th dimension rotate photons? Are photons the only thing that really exist in the 4th dimension? (Sorry I don't understand this yet.)

3) How does MDT explain Bell's Theorem? explain quantum indeterminacy? explain movement in 3 dimensions.

4) Is MDT congruent with the quantum computer/information theory of the universe?

[astro]

Hi! I've been reading up on MDT and it seems to make a lot of sense. Still, I have some questions...

1) If we don't need strings and membranes and 11 dimensions, why does the math work for strings?

2) Why does the 4th dimension rotate photons? Are photons the only thing that really exist in the 4th dimension? (Sorry I don't understand this yet.)

3) How does MDT explain Bell's Theorem? explain quantum indeterminacy? explain movement in 3 dimensions.

4) Is MDT congruent with the quantum computer/information theory of the universe?

1. the math doesn't work for strings. String theory has no equations. String theory mkes no predictions. String theory has no math pertaining to physics--if anyone can prove otherwise, please do so.

2) the fourth dimension does not rotate photons--the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions atthe rate of c. photons are matter that has been rotated into the fourth expanding dimension. they "surf" the fourth expanding dimension, riding its expansion. In physics, a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric wavefront of probability. That is because the the fourth dimension appears as an expanding sphereically-symmetric wavefront. Everything that moves has a component that moves in the fourth expanding dimension. The larged the component in the fourth expanding dimension, the faster it moves, and the more its length is contracted in the three spatial dimensions, as predicted by relativity.

3) Bell's theorem pertains to action-at-a-distance or quantum entanglement.
Consider two interacting photons that propagate in opposite directions. One second later, each photon's polarization is measured at detectors separated by 372,000 miles. According to quantum mechanics and numerous experiments, the measurement at one detector instantaneously affects the measurement at the second detector. It is as if the photons are yet side-by-side for all intents and purposes. This "spooky action at a distance," as Einstein called it, is not so spooky in the context of moving dimensions theory, for MDT states that although separated by 372,000 miles, the photons are yet in the exact same place in the fourth dimension, as the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. So it is that quantum phenomena on the photonic level, as well as relativistic phenomena on the photonic level, are both accounted for with simple elegance via MDT: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Picture the emission of a photon in free space. Once second later, the photon has equal probability of being found anywhere upon a sphere with a radius of 186,000 miles, as c, the velocity of light, equals 186,000 miles per second. If we covered the surface of the sphere with detectors, one, and only one, would click. And the photon, although traveling 186,000 miles through space, will not have aged one iota, for time stops at the speed of light. The photon will have traveled 186,000 miles through the three spatial dimensions, and yet it will not have moved one iota in the fourth dimension. And there lies our first clue to moving dimensions theory. For how can a photon propagate 186,000 in the three spatial dimensions, and yet not budge an inch in the fourth dimension, unless that fourth dimension is expanding? Ergo, the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

MDT explains quantum indeterminancy as this--in the case of a photon, the fourth expanding dimension spreads matter out as a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wave. The measurement of the wave with lab apparatus localizes the photon in the three spatial dimensions. The fouurth expaning dimension accounts for the creation of probability, as the wavefront represents both locality in the fourth dimension and simultanaity in the fourth expanding dimension, as locality in time is simultanaeity. This is born out be the fact that no matter how far two photons propagate from a common origin, they remain in the exact same place in the fourth dimension--neither one ages (relativity), and too, they can yet be connected via entanglement (quantum mechanics) . So it is that MDT explains both relativity and QM with a simple postulate: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatil dimensions.

[InfiniteImprobability]

Thanks. BTW, thanks for your response over in mkaku -- I'm AmySauers.

A few more questions, please...(Sorry if I'm thick; I'm not a physicist, although I've read a lot.)

1) Why I thought the math worked for strings:
"String theory Types I, IIA, IIB, and two Heterotic string theories all have certain common features. The most obvious are the replacement of point particles by strings and the six extra "curled-up" space-time dimensions. The shape of these compactified dimensions is what mathematicians call a Calabi-Yau manifold, and the particle spectrum of the physical theory is determined by the topology and geometry of this manifold." math.washington.edu/~doran/StringTheoryandMathematics.ppt#256,1,String Theory and Mathematics

"To be fair, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of string theory proper from that of supersymmetric quantum field theory, since the two theories are so intimately linked. Indeed, supersymmetry is arguably the only testable prediction of string theory thus far." maths.ed.ac.uk/~jmf/Research/strings_3.html

What if String Theorists discover "sparticles?" Would that prove string theory? Maybe supersymmetric quantum field theory is right... would MDT agree with that?

2) Clarification (sorry if I'm thick here, but it's getting clearer): So M turns into Photons when it reaches C?

3) Does the 3rd dimension make the 4th dimension expand?

4) Can we "call M into existence" in the 3rd dimension from out of the 4th dimension?

5) So w/o the 4th dimension, we wouldn't have quantum field or probability wavefronts for M?

6) So at "birth," photons immediately enter the 4th dimension, which expands at exactly rate C, which accounts for why photons look entangled, yet far, to us here in 3D.

(This "entangled photon birth" reminds me of my "big bang myth story," hence why all M is interconnected and quite literally of the continuum. You might like it... I'll paste it here:

Here’s a new creation myth:
“In the beginning, there was the probability curve. And the probability curve decided that “today” was a day that was within plus or minus two standard deviations on the curve, so no quantum fluctuation/particle/universe was born. But the next “day,” the probability curve rolled its dice (sorry, Einstein) and the die turned out to be more than + or – two standard deviations out. What a fluke! And so there was a tiny quantum blurb in nothingness and the universe (or one of them) was born.”
Not as poetic as the great myths, but it works, no?)

7) So big man Einstein was really, really, laughably close, no?

8) Check out this paper on what movement is via the 4th dimension: vacuumphysics.net/index.php?s=25
Quantum information is the only thing that "moves."
"Quantum information is embossed in the fabric of space. This can only mean that any classical object, after being moved from one point in space to some other distant point, is no longer made of the same material-space that it was made of at its original location. Only quantum mechanical information, associated with the geometry of Plane and Space Curves, actually appears to move from one potential location to another."

9) When's your MDT book coming out?

10) So in MDT, what's dark matter (I'm thick on this)?

11) I believe MDT, the movement of quantum information idea, and "universe as quantum computer" notion are congruent. See Lloyd: "The universe is a quantum computer whose computations are the movements of information that define the world we experience."

12) How does LQG fit in with MDT?

Thanks again. Keep on truckin'.
-Amy

PS- I'm huge Joe Campbell fan and "John Bogle for Prez!" Grad school was total hell for me, too.

[Epsilon=One]

What physically creates "the fourth dimension"? Or, is it a concept?

the fourth dimension is expanding at the rate of c, in units of the planck length.Why is the expansion in units of the “planck length”? How does the “planck length” evolve? And, what are the mathematics of said evolved phenomenon?

Hence quantum oscillations.Assuming the stated “rate of c” is constant, how does a constant expansion, at said rate, manifest as “quantum oscillations”: i.e. What creates the direction reversal of an oscillation? What is the quantum . . . “spatial” or a “field” . . . or?

If “the rate of c” is constant does it have a “starting” point (as light is presumed to have) and an “ending” point?

Does the “fourth dimension” (whatever that may be) expand from every point that light emanates and reflects from? How are such seemingly complex expansions coordinated? How are the phenomena of absorption and “half-spin” explained?

Time is an emergent phenonomena.How does a concept emerge?: i.e. What are the physical properties of “time” that it can emerge?

What does “time” emerge from? And, where does said emergence “go”?

[sujet]

... now please do the same as concisely for the double-slit experiment and you're on your way to grabbing a wider audience. You'll probably want to move towards a Von Neumann extension of the Copenhagen Interpretation, though-- moving the Heisenberg cut up to the experimenter.

You don't realize it, but you're headed to a radical phenomenology, Astro. It's inevitable. But the sooner you embrace it, the sooner you can start referring to time as "psychological time" and be done with it. Things like that.

Read your Husserl (Paris Lectures) and begin your epoche'. Or just read this short piece by Piet Hut: .ids.ias.edu/~piet/publ/other/husserlcircle.html

Funny, I caught Rees and Carr and Thurrock at the Hay festival (and interviewed one of them on film afterwards about Multiverse) and what struck me was their collective mantra about how "the nature of science is changing". Now, what they are referring to is the OPPOSITE of phenomenology. They're talking about a science free of emperical observation and accountability.

The epoche' is quite the opposite of that. You should check it out.

[Epsilon=One]

"Science is totally dependent on philosophy, though it easily forgets this." -- Nietzsche NachlassHow prescient Nietzsche was for his day (though I'm not certain how emphatic he was concerning the promotion of the issue); and, how recklessly unconcerned with philosophy are today's theoretical physicists.

You don't realize it, but you're headed to a radical phenomenology, Astro. It's inevitable. But the sooner you embrace it, the sooner you can start referring to time as "psychological time" and be done with it. Things like that.I agree with you concerning time, which recently MDT has been blurring as other than a fundamental dimension.

MDT's direction towards a coherent "radical phenomenology" would seem to require a reconciled expression/definition concerning oscillations (particulary solitons), the emergence of "fields," "space," mathematics, and other fundamental concepts, etc. with observed gravitational entanglement and Cosmic inertia (accelerating galactic recession).

...I caught Rees and Carr and Thurrock at the Hay festival (and interviewed one of them on film afterwards about Multiverse) and what struck me was their collective mantra about how "the nature of science is changing"."The nature of science," as practiced may be "changing"; however, it seems a bit stretched to consider concepts such as "Multiverse" when we can't even account for the locus of the Universe.

Now, what they are referring to is the OPPOSITE of phenomenology. They're talking about a science free of emperical observation and accountability.Such is how I view most all of the fundamental, metaphysical concepts that are provided by academic, theoretical physics.

[astro]

... now please do the same as concisely for the double-slit experiment and you're on your way to grabbing a wider audience. You'll probably want to move towards a Von Neumann extension of the Copenhagen Interpretation, though-- moving the Heisenberg cut up to the experimenter.

You don't realize it, but you're headed to a radical phenomenology, Astro. It's inevitable. But the sooner you embrace it, the sooner you can start referring to time as "psychological time" and be done with it. Things like that.

Read your Husserl (Paris Lectures) and begin your epoche'. Or just read this short piece by Piet Hut: .ids.ias.edu/~piet/publ/other/husserlcircle.html

Funny, I caught Rees and Carr and Thurrock at the Hay festival (and interviewed one of them on film afterwards about Multiverse) and what struck me was their collective mantra about how "the nature of science is changing". Now, what they are referring to is the OPPOSITE of phenomenology. They're talking about a science free of emperical observation and accountability.

The epoche' is quite the opposite of that. You should check it out.

Thanks for the words! Will check out the links!

Would love to see your interview! Post a link to it! Be gald to give it some pub. :)

From Einstein's Theory of Relativity Manuscipt page 44.



If we compare this with the considerations leading to the general Lorentz transformation from 9, then we see that the transformation equations holding between x,y, z, u = ict and x',y',z',u' = ict' of two justified space-time reference systems satisfy teh same conditions and are constructed in the same way as in the just considered three-dimensional case. The only difference is that we now have four coordicantes instead of three. We can forumlate this in the following way: All of the "justified" time-space reference systems to which the four-dimensional manifold of events is referred are orthogonal coordinate systems with four axes that can be transformed into each other by mere rotation. One has to keep in mind that the fourth coordinate u is always purely imaginary.You heard it from Einstein himself: All of the "justified" time-space reference systems to which the four-dimensional manifold of events is referred are orthogonal coordinate systems with four axes that can be transformed into each other by mere rotation.


The rotation into the fourth dimension u is always accompanied by length contraction in the three spatial dimensions, and a "boost" in velocity in the three spatial dimensions, and a decrease in velocity in the fourth exapnding dimension. This is because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.







Einstein continues:



The appropriateness of this conception becomes immediately apparent when we consider the special Lorentz transformation from this point of view. The simplest rotational transformation is one that involves only two coordinates. Two cases are possible, depending on whether two spatial coordinates, or one spatial coordinate and the temporal coordinate, undergo a transformation. We put the two cases side by side so as to let their formal equivalence come to the fore. . . The circumstance that the time coordinate is transformed in transformations from one justified system to another one, and that the time coordinate enters the transformation equations in the same way as the spatial coordinates, led Minkowski to the natural requirement that the mathematical description of physical processes be carried out in such a way that the time coordinate is not distinguished. Thus, instead of the question, "How do physical systems change with time," he poses the question, "How is the four-dimensional structure that consists in the totality of the successive states constituted? " In a manner of speaking, he thus turns the theory of changes (dynamics) in the three-dimension into a kind of statics of the four-dimensional.


In other words, Minkowski freezes time. He freezes the fourth expanding dimension, which is why relativity implies block time, and which is why relativity is incompatible with free will and quantum mechanics, which views time as a dynamic variable.


The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in a spherically symmetric manner, at the rate of c. The quantized fourth dimensional expansion manifests itself at a tiny sphere of planck radius, and all points on the surface of the sphere are at the same place in the fourth expanding dimension. The dimension itself is non-local in the three spatial dimensions, but every point on its surface is in the exact same place in the fourth dimension. So it is that the double-slit experiment and action-at-a-distance might be explained. So it is that wave-particle duality and entanglement might be accounted for. So it is that two intitially-interacting photons, once separated by miles, might still affect one-another instaneously, as they are yet neighbors in the fourth dimension.

The physical reality of the fourth dimension itself does away with all the infinities inherent in attempted unifications of quantum mechanics and relativity, as the fourth dimension is not defiend by points, but by perpetually expanding localities, which although they spread out through the three spatial dimension, yet retain their absolute locality in the fourth dimension. There is no longer any need for strings, nor LQG, but there is something far more simple--far more fundamental: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

The realtivity of simultanaeity also descends from this, as the fundamental simultaneity is defined by the photon's spherically-symmetric wavefront expanding in the three spatial dimensions. A photon never ages, and thus the spherically-symmetric wavefront of its expansion defines a unique place in time. Every region on the surface of a photons expanding wavefront remains at the exact same place in teh fourth dimension. Hence the wavefront can appear to collapse immediately, as in measurement during the photoelectric effect, or when a photon is localized upon the film place in a double-slit experiment, after interfering with itself as a non-local wave. And hence a particle can behave as a wave as it surfs the fourth expanding dimension.

Furthermore, photons are naught but matter surfing upon the fourth expanding dimension. Because the fourth dimension expands at the rate of c, photons move at the rate of c. Because the velocity of the fourth expanding dimension is independent of the velocity of the photon source, the velocity of the photon, which is wed to the velocity of the fourth expanding dimension taht it surfs, is independent of the velocity of the source. Because the fourth expanding dimension distributes its locality as a spherically-symmetric wavefront, photons can behave in non-local manners, both when interfering with themselves in the double-slit experiments, and interacting with other photons in the EPR paradox, Bell's inequalities, and the experiments of Aspect et al, all demonstrating non-locality.

The asymmetry of time's arrow, be it radiative, classical, or quantum mechanical, may be accounted for via MDT. Of course, on a quantum mechanical level, where the distances in space and time are small, and the fourth expanding dimension has traveled but a minute distance, processes seem yet reversible, and time seems more symmetric. But over time, on macroscopic levels, all the processes based on the expansion of the fourth dimension--all the photons emitted and atoms carried apart by thermal vibrations fundamentally wed to a fourth expanding dimension that naturally separates any two neighboring particles by the ever-increasing spherically-symmetric wavefornt of the fourth expanding dimension--all the processes add up to give us our irreversible reality. Coffee cups fall and break and shall never reform. The heat from hour homes dissipate in the form of infra-red radiation, carried outward by the expanding fourth dimension, as well as by convection and conduction, which is based upon thermally-vibrating particles, which are endowed with energy in proportion to the degree they interact with the fourth expadning dimension.

The fourth expanding dimension is the natural source of massive amounts of energy, demonstrated by our sun every day. What begins as matter in the sun finds itself rotated or boosted into the fourth expanding dimension, traveling away from the sun at the rate of c. Thus E=mc^2, and all mass has a vast potential to appear as energy, as energy is nothing more than mass that is rotated into the fourth expanding dimension.

And so we again come back to Einstein, All of the "justified" time-space reference systems to which the four-dimensional manifold of events is referred are orthogonal coordinate systems with four axes that can be transformed into each other by mere rotation. --Einstein

This insight led him straight to E=mc^2. What he didn't see was that it implied a fourth expanding dimension, which also explains entanglement.

Elliot :)

[Epsilon=One]

And so we again come back to Einstein, All of the "justified" time-space reference systems to which the four-dimensional manifold of events is referred are orthogonal coordinate systems with four axes that can be transformed into each other by mere rotation. --EinsteinTo support a dimensional theory based on such aspects of Einstein's thoughts is "shakey" at best.

How can Einstein possibly have fully understood what he was talking about, concerning "time-space reference systems," without being able to fundamentally define "time-space." No one knew better than Einstein that his concepts were irreconcilable with observation.

When Einstein was speculating about "time-space reference systems" he was unaware of accelerating galactic recession, emergent "dark" energy, "dark"/transparant matter, etc.

As he did not accept the Big Bang (which was not accepted as a Standard Model until about 8 years after his death . . . and some 30 years after its conceptual birth to appease the Catholic Church), he was not even able to theorize an opposing, macro, structural force to gravity in his "two-body" attempt to symbolize the phenomenon with his theory of general relativity (GR). He well recognized the importance and necessity of such a force as evidenced by his abandoned, and illogically constructed, "cosmological constant."

Einstein, while a patent-clerk, pioneered theory that rose to a new level of evolutionary reason, a paradigm-shift; however, things are not "just so" because he speculated "so."

This insight led him straight to E=mc^2. What he didn't see was that it implied a fourth expanding dimension, which also explains entanglement.How does a "fourth expanding dimension" define and differentiate concepts such as "space" and "time"?; much less explain Cosmic entanglement as evidenced by the near infinite speed of gravitational effects . . . that are well beyond Einstein's "c" that is a limited constant.

[Epsilon=One]

1. the math doesn't work for strings.All mathematics is directly derived from the fundamental concepts of String Theory (ST).

String theory has no equations.See the equations in the below signature.

String theory mkes no predictions.ST fundamentals (oscillations) predict universal entanglement and the future of all that exists as the source from which all emerges.

String theory has no math pertaining to physics--if anyone can prove otherwise, please do so.No one has disproved any fundamental concept of Pulsoid Theory (PT). (See: “Pulsoid theory is . . .” (www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) and “A Challenge to Academe” (www.CQthus.com/PT/Challenge)). ST is about minute oscillations, which is a description of PT, which was the first essence of ST.

PT’s algebraic geometry (“math”) proves the Elliptical Constant (EC.101123.com) (EC) that proves “One” the heuristic symbolization of the Conceptual Unit (CU.101123.com) (CU), which is: 1.) the fundamental unit of time (www.CQthus.com/PT/FIT) (FIT); 2.) that which creates the quanta (“field”/”space” (www.CQthus.com/PT/Dyo)); and, 3.) the Planck constant (www.CQthus.com/PT/QC) (unit of minimal energy).

What is physics without an unambiguous definition of time, fields, space, and the Planck constant?

[InfiniteImprobability]

Two questions...

In MDT, is the 4th D. as big as Plank's constant all around us?

The "space-time continuum/fabric" is a bit of a misnomer with including time in there so casually? If you get a big crunch, time won't go backward with space?