## No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research,

you can request a copy directly from the authors.

In the 20th century, physicists have understood space and time as being coupled into a space-time manifold, a fundamental arena in which everything takes place. Space-time was considered to have three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Out of the experimental facts, one can conclude that time t we measure with clocks is only a numerical order of duration of motion, i.e. material change in a three-dimensional space. This view allows description of electromagnetic phenomena in a three-dimensional Euclidean space.

To read the full-text of this research,

you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... From OIS point of view, this happened because the vectors of the force-speed binomial associated to forzons time surfaces decrease its magnitude proportionally to the existing pressure in its space of location. With minor force per time unit the execution speed decrease and as a consequence the execution time increase (Sorli & Fiscaletti, 2012). ...

... As seen, what relativity has observed as time dilatation can consist of a simple process slowdown, herein Relativity and OIS coincide. So, the interpretations are very different because SR proclaims the existence of a fourth dimension somewhat unnecessary in OIS and other theories (Sorli & Fiscaletti, 2012) ...

The Forzon, is the primordial particle from which have been built all the physical particles, i.e. all the matter and energy. This particle is the cause of impulse and has a motor allowing its displacement through space at the speed of light consuming its inner energy. In this manner, the Forzon is the cause of the mass of all the particles, including the ones known as particles without mass. The exact way in which the forzon produced inertia has been described in the omnidirectional impulses system (OIS) theory.
The present work aimed to explain the way in which the Forzon obtains its energy in space and in which form this energy is found in the vacuum space in order for the Forzon to use it; simultaneously being the origin of other manifestations, as the universe expansion, the dark matter ,dark energy, gravitation and the electromagnetic fields.
All of these lead to a model of a fluid universe where the time, is the base of the matter and energy, and also the space evacuator.

... Moreva and others published a paper with a proposal that time has origin in quantum entanglement. This proposal is built on the preposition that " internal observer " , " external observer " , " coordinate time " and " proper time " have existence in real universe: " The " problem of time "23456 between the clock and the rest91011121314. Thus, time would be an emergent property of subsystems of the universe deriving from their entangled nature: an extremely elegant but controversial idea [2, 15]. ...

... What is " relative " is not time in which it changes. " Relative " are velocity of changes and rate of clocks which run in quantum vacuum which is always NOW [13]. Common idea of SR interpretation, namely that position of an observer can influence rate of clocks is not right. ...

... In the recent articles Special theory of relativity in a three-dimensional Euclid space and About a new suggested interpretation of special theory of relativity in a three-dimensional Euclid space the authors developed a "3D interpretation" of special relativity in which clocks, at a fundamental level, provide only measuring systems of the numerical order of material changes [16,17]. According to this approach, considering a rest inertial frame o and a moving inertial frame o' which moves with velocity v with respect to o directed as the first spatial coordinate, the Minkowskian arena of Special Theory of Relativity can be replaced with a three-dimensional Euclid space with Galilean transformations ...

A model of a three-dimensional quantum vacuum as a fundamental arena is introduced where time measured with clocks is only a mathematical parameter, namely the numerical order of changes and the most fundamental physical properties are the energy density and state-reduction (RS) processes (of creation-annihilation of quantum particles). This model introduces interesting perspectives in the interpretation of quantum mechanics and has the merit to see the quantum behaviour of matter and gravity as two different aspects of the same source.

The fourth dimension is a complex concept that deals with abstract reasoning, our sense of perception, and our imagination. Mathematics posits that a four-dimensional space is a geometric space with four dimensions. For many the fourth dimension is the element of time added to the three parameters of length, height and depth. How does a geometer incorporates time in the description of a structure, or a visual artist integrates time in a two dimensional flat surface image, when they both rely on well-defined principles that are a tangible descriptive of our reality? This chapter gives a brief overview of the different schools of thought in the Humanities and in Science, offers a possible definition of this elusive element needed to anchor the fourth dimension in our larger abstract reasoning consensus, and focuses on the specific of Mathematics and visual imaging to illustrate the particular benefit of collaborating on a simple, usable descriptive to create a sound outcome.

This work presents a model of reality that represents a synthesis of the relativistic physics of Albert Einstein and the geometric spatial science of Buckminster Fuller. The result of this synthesis is an anatomical and visualizable model of reality, referred to as the relational matrix model, that demonstrates that the interrelations between space, time, energy, and matter mathematically described by Einstein in his relativity theories all exist as a function of relations that arise and exist naturally both between and within different levels of a geometric reality structure that exists where we perceive physical reality to be. Evidence that this way of modeling reality accurately reflects the way in which reality is actually structured, underlying the surface appearance that is physical experiential reality, is presented by using the relational matrix model to model the behavior of electromagnetic radiation and matter in a way that reveals the actual nature and basis of both chronological time and mass, as well as why both chronological time and mass are relative to material velocity. Once that evidence has been presented, the case is then made that if humanity is to continue to progress rather than decline as a species, human beings are going to have to overcome what seems to be our natural aversion to recognizing and accepting that physical reality is not what is actually there, where it appears to be. And we must do this so that we can finally begin to recognize and deal with reality as it actually exists, which is as something that is completely interconnected and inseparable from itself, rather than as it only physically appears to exist, which is as something that is completely separable and divisible from itself. Because as will be described, the aggressive human behaviors that continue to put us, as a species, at ever-increasing risk of wiping ourselves off the face of the planet, as a result of the self-inflicted wounds that invariably accompany such behaviors, have as their basis nothing more than the human belief that reality actually exists in the divisive way that physical reality appears to exist.

In Special Theory of Relativity time is considered to be the 4th dimension of space – time as a consequence of Lorentz invariance and Minkowski metric, in turn based on the invariance of light speed . In this paper we’ll show that, starting only from universal postulates as homogeneity of space and time and Principle of Relativity, we can obtain space and time transformations (as the Lorentz and Tangherlini – Selleri ones) characterized by an invariant speed generally different than . These results determine crucial difficulties in the assumption of Minkowski metric and consequently in the interpretation of physical time as the 4th component of space – time, also introducing a “relativity” feature in the velocity of light in vacuum being no longer considerable as a necessarily universal invariant quantity and depending on the physical properties of space which originate from quantum vacuum. A novel interpretation of time, coherent with these results, defined as duration of material change in space, i.e. motion, is finally proposed.

Unambiguously a matter with a given mass lies in a three dimensional universal space which originates from the three dimensional quantum vacuum. As there is not known yet what is giving mass to the hypothetical Higgs boson there is another theoretical solution for the origin of mass, namely that mass of a given matter/energy phenomena is originated from the energy density of quantum vacuum. This paper demonstrates that mass can be interpreted as a diminishing of the energy density of quantum vacuum caused by the presence of a given matter/energy phenomena. In this model time is merely a mathematical dimension, namely numerical order of motion of a given matter/energy phenomena in a quantum vacuum.

By 1949, Gödel had produced a remarkable proof: “In any universe described by the Theory of Relativity, time cannot exist.” Recent research on time suggests that the universe does not take place in time as a physical dimension, on the contrary, time that is measured with clocks takes place in the universe as a numerical order of universal change. In universe, time is exclusively a mathematical quantity.

We present a physical-optics-based theory for aberration of starlight and show that the influence of the moving sensor on the incident stellar wavefront combined with a finite velocity of light within the sensor can fully account for the aberration phenomena. Our treatment differs from all previous derivations because we include wave-front-imaging physics within the sensor model. Our predictions match existing Earth-based aberration measurements but differ from predictions of the special relativistic-based theory for larger velocities. We derive design parameters for an experiment using an Earth-based sensor containing a refractive optical medium that would experimentally differentiate between these two theories and yield an independent experimental test of time dilation.

A simple argument is given to prove that a uniformly moving rod does not really contract, contrary to the orthodox view. (C) 2011 Physics Essays Publication. [DOI: 10.4006/1.3578690]

In the 20th century, physics has understood space and time as being coupled into a “space-time” manifold, a fundamental arena in which everything takes place. Space-time was considered to have three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. Out of the mathematical formalism for the fourth space-time component X4=ict, one can conclude that time t is only a numerical order of material change, i.e., the motion that we obtain with clocks. Time is not a fourth dimension of space. For the description of the special theory of relativity, it is here proposed a Minkowski 4D space, while time t is merely a numerical order of a photon motion in a four-dimensional (4D) space. This view opens new perspectives on the understanding of the quantum entanglement, where the 4D space becomes an immediate medium for quantum communication.

A new hypothesis is proposed about the nature of physical reality at its most primitive level. The hypothesis is framed in terms of invariance, a concept that forms the very bedrock of physics. Specifically, the Invariant Set Hypothesis proposes that states of physical reality are precisely those belonging to a non-computable fractal subset I of state space, invariant under the action of some subordinate deterministic causal dynamics D. The Invariant Set Hypothesis provides a geometric framework for a new perspective on quantum physics.

Quantum mechanics is derived as an application of the method of maximum
entropy. No appeal is made to any underlying classical action principle whether
deterministic or stochastic. Instead, the basic assumption is that in addition
to the particles of interest x there exist extra variables y whose entropy S(x)
depends on x. The Schr\"odinger equation follows from their coupled dynamics:
the entropy S(x) drives the dynamics of the particles x while they in their
turn determine the evolution of S(x). In this "entropic dynamics" time is
introduced as a device to keep track of change. A welcome feature of such an
entropic time is that it naturally incorporates an arrow of time. Both the
magnitude and the phase of the wave function are given statistical
interpretations: the magnitude gives the distribution of x in agreement with
the usual Born rule and the phase carries information about the entropy S(x) of
the extra variables. Extending the model to include external electromagnetic
fields yields further insight into the nature of the quantum phase.

Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of
gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which
space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an
entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the
positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented
arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even
Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads
us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is
entropic.

From the Physics point of view, time is now best described through General Relativity, as part of space-time which is a dynamical object encoding gravity. Time possesses also some intrinsic irreversibility due to thermodynamics, quantum mechanical effects... This irreversibility can look puzzling since time-like loops (and hence time machines) can appear in General Relativity (for example in the Goedel universe, a solution of Einstein's equations). We take this apparent discrepancy as a warning bell pointing to us that time as we understand it, might not be fundamental and that whatever theory, lying beyond General Relativity, may not include time as we know it as a fundamental structure. We propose therefore, following the philosophy of analog models of gravity, that time and gravity might not be fundamental per se, but only emergent features. We illustrate our proposal using a toy-model where we show how the Lorentzian signature and Nordstroem gravity (a diffeomorphisms invariant scalar gravity theory) can emerge from a timeless non-dynamical space.

We show that a very natural synchronization procedure is expressed by the requirement that the velocity of S
0 relative to S be equal and opposite to that of S relative to S
0, if S
0 is the “absolute” inertial frame and S any other inertial frame. This new procedure is compatible with Einstein synchronization and with slow-transport synchronization only within the special theory of relativity. The practical equivalence of the Lorentz and Tangherlini transformations is discussed.

Equivalent transformations (ET) of space and time between inertial systems are obtained from two assumptions: (1) The two-way velocity of light is c in all inertial systems and in all directions; (2) Clock retardation takes place with the usual square-root factor for clocks moving with respect to a certain isotropical reference frame. The ET contain a free coefficient, e
1, reflecting the well-known synchronisation arbitrariness. The Lorentz transformations are recovered for a particular value of e
1. Many experiments are insensitive to the choice of e
1: Michelson type, aberration, occultations of Jupiter’s satellites, and radar ranging of planets. Accelerations break the equivalence in the set of ET. The example of two equally accelerating spaceships — originally discussed by John Bell for different purposes [1] — is used to show that absolute simultaneity gives the best description of physical reality.

Wheeler–deWitt equation as well as some relevant current research (Chiou’s timeless path integral approach for relativistic quantum mechanics; Palmer’s view of a fundamental level of physical reality based on an Invariant Set Postulate; Girelli’s, Liberati’s and Sindoni’s toy model of a non-dynamical timeless space as fundamental background of physical events) suggest that at a fundamental level the background space of physics is timeless, that the duration of physical events has not a primary existence. By taking into consideration the two fundamental theories of time represented by the Jacobi-Barbour-Bertotti theory and by Rovelli’s approach, here it is shown that the view of time as emergent quantity measuring the numerical order of material changes (which can above all be derived from some significant current research, such as Elze’s approach of time, Caticha’s approach of entropic time and Prati’s model of physical clock time) introduces a suggestive unifying re-reading.

In physics, the spatial distance d is a product of velocity v and time t: d=vt. Mathematical formalism x4=ict confirms that in special theory of relativity the fourth coordinate x4 is spatial too. x4 is composed of c light speed, imaginary number i, and time t that represents a “tick” of a clock. Time t obtained with clocks describes numerical order of material change t0,t1,t2,…,tn. Clocks are reference systems for measuring frequency, velocity, and numerical order of material changes that run in space. Time t as a component of x4 is the running of clocks in space. This view of time as a measuring reference system sees physical phenomena running exclusively in space and not in time. This view explains some recent experiments which confirm that time t of physical event can be zero.

Transformations of space and time, depending on a synchronisation parameter e
1, indicate the existence of a privileged inertial system S
0. The Lorentz transformations are obtained for a particular e
10. No classical experiment on relativity is expected to depend on the choice of e
1. We show, consistently with expectations, that the result of the Fizeau experiment is explained equally well by theories adopting different values of e
1. In previous papers we showed that if accelerated reference frames are considered only e
1=0 remains possible.

We study classical Hamiltonian systems in which the intrinsic proper time evolution parameter is related through a probability
distribution to the physical time, which is assumed to be discrete.
This is motivated by the “timeless” reparametrization invariant model of a relativistic particle with two compactified extra-dimensions.
In this example, discrete physical time is constructed based on quasi-local observables.
Generally, employing the path-integral formulation of classical mechanics developed by Gozzi et al., we show that these deterministic classical systems can be naturally described as unitary quantum mechanical models. The
emergent quantum Hamiltonian is derived from the underlying classical one. It is closely related to the Liouville operator.
We demonstrate in several examples the necessity of regularization, in order to arrive at quantum models with bounded spectrum
and stable ground state.

Atomic clocks distributed around the world communicate with one another by means of radio signals. The synchronization signals sent by a transmitting station always reach the receiving station on time, at any hour of the day and in any season, despite the motion of the Earth. For some authors this means that these signals propagate isotropically (with one way velocity c), even with respect to the Earth''s surface. In fact this may not be so; we show that the proper working of the network says nothing about the one-way velocity, as it is consistent with another theory, empirically (almost) equivalent to special relativity, in which the one-way speed of light has a directional dependence in moving frames.

Recently published space-time transformations between inertial systems (different from the Lorentz transformations) are reviewed. Energy and momentum are defined consistently with these new transformation laws. Formally they equal the usual relativistic expressions only in the privileged frame, but numerically they do so in all inertial frames. All the precise experimental data concerning thresholds for inelastic processes, particle masses, and so on, can thus be explained also within this new theoretical framework.

The nature of time: from a timeless Hamiltonian framework to clock time of metrology

- E Prati

E. Prati, "The nature of time: from a timeless
Hamiltonian framework to clock time of
metrology", arXiv:0907.1707v1 [physics.class-ph]
(2009).

The Concept of Space

- A Einstein

A. Einstein, "The Concept of Space", Nature
125 (1930).

Space and time should be preferred to spacetime-2, International workshop Physics for the 21 st century

- F Selleri

F. Selleri, Space and time should be preferred to spacetime-2, International workshop Physics
for the 21 st century, 5-9 June 2000

- G Puccini
- F Selleri

G. Puccini and F. Selleri, Nuovo Cimento B 117, 283 (2002)

- A Sorli

A. Sorli, Journal of Advanced Physics 1, 1, 110-112 (2012)

- B L Lan

B. L. Lan, Physics Essays 24, 2, 293-294 (2011)

- S J Ostro

S. J. Ostro, Reviews of Modern Physics 65, 4, 1235-1279 (1993)

- P Lynds

P. Lynds, Found. Phys. Lett. 16, 4, 343-355 (2003)

- P Eckle
- A N Pfeiffer
- C Cirelli
- A Staudte
- R Dörner
- H G Muller
- M Büttiker
- U Keller

P. Eckle, A. N. Pfeiffer, C. Cirelli, A. Staudte, R. Dörner, H. G. Muller, M.
Büttiker and U. Keller, Science 322, 5907, 1525-1529 (2008), http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/322/5907/1525

- S Pirandola
- S L Braunstein
- S Mancini
- S Lloyd

S. Pirandola, S. L. Braunstein, S. Mancini and S. Lloyd, Europhysics Letters 84, 20013-120013-6 (2008)

- Gerhard C Hegerfeldt

Gerhard C. Hegerfeldt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 5, 596-599 (1994), http://prola.aps.org/abstract/
PRL/v72/i5/p596_1

- D Fiscaletti
- A Sorli

D. Fiscaletti and A. Sorli, Annales UMCS Sectio AAA: Physica 57, 47-72 (2012)

- F Lindner
- M G Schätzel
- H Walther
- A Baltuška
- E Goulielmakis

F. Lindner, M. G. Schätzel, H. Walther, A. Baltuška, E. Goulielmakis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95,
040401 (2005)

- Irwin I Shapiro

Irwin I. Shapiro, Physical Review Letters 13, 26, 789-791 (1964)