COMMENTARY ON THE RESULTS FROM THE PREVIOUS POST: I realized that confirmation of the mathematical validity of the theory (a group wave composition of wave components will always appear to move at constant speed regardless of the observer’s frame of reference velocity) has much more impact than I first thought. When Einstein discovered the constant speed of light as derived from Maxwell’s equations, he interpreted that to mean that space and time are interchangeable depending on an observer’s frame of reference. From that came the realization that time could be treated as a dimension, and from there on, physics has accepted that as foundational. Dirac’s prediction of antiparticles, and the subsequent experimental verification of antiparticle existence via oppositely curving positrons led Feynman and others to postulate that antiparticles experience time in the reverse direction. Since then, many have attempted to use dimensional time to explain quantum decoherence, unification with gravity, and so on.
The thing I really don’t like about this is that Dirac’s equation results from the incorporation of Lorentz invariance (special relativity) into Schroedinger’s equation, and as such it builds in time-symmetric solutions. So, when Feynman ran into difficulty figuring out how the self energy of an electron in its own field would work, he pulls out the rabbit in the hat–retarded and advanced potentials–that was built in to the Dirac equation. What did they expect–build in negative time, get an answer that includes negative time solutions. I may be naive about what happened but I think Feynman’s famous skepticism took a vacation here. The Dirac equation needs another constraint added to it to make it match reality–the laws of thermodynamics that enforces forward time passage. There must be a negative energy solution to the Dirac equation that does not require a negative time interpretation.
As a result of this thought process, my big problem as an amateur physicist is that I think interpreting time as dimensional is a mistake. I think there is better evidence that time is a property of particles in their own frame of reference. Aside from quantum uncertainty that exists for both space and time, we have no evidence of visitors, particles, or waves, or anything else from the future. If a particle is moving relative to an observer, the apparent time passage that the particle experiences can look different, but isn’t actually different in his own frame of reference. And there’s no question that when a particle is accelerated, time as a property of the particle does slow down relative to a static observer.
The big glaring elephant in the room is the fact that to observe an antiparticle curve in the opposite direction, it has to be moving forward in time, continuously coincident in time with all non-antiparticles. If an antiparticle really were moving backwards in time, it would only exist as a momentary blip in the spacetime plane of normal particle existence. The fact that the constant speed of light has the alternate explanation described in my paper reinforces the idea that interpreting time as a dimension could be a mistake.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a single physicist out there that will go against established theory about time as a dimension, there has been too much published research for them to arbitrarily believe my hypothesis that they all got something wrong. To make matters worse, there is the well deserved disdain for those who claim established physics is wrong–if I were to persist, I would fall into the crackpot trap. I cannot do that. All I can do is say I have my doubts, and that I can show another way this could work that doesn’t require time to be a dimension.
So, what does that mean? Nothing more than that I can continue on uncovering what I can with what I know. But my accepting this result as reality means I will travel alone on this journey, no serious researcher will go with me.
Agemoz
Tags: physics, quantum, science, special relativity, time, time dimension
Agemoz's Physics Blog 
Leave a comment