Professor Asher Yaholum from the Israeli Ariel University Center was able to confirm the basic assumptions used by Einstein regarding the dimension of time in the theory of general relativity * The results of the research work are published in the journal FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS
A new study conducted by Prof. Asher Yehalom from the Ariel University Center in Samaria in collaboration with the University of Cambridge in Great Britain, explains why the dimension of time is different from the other three dimensions of space. The research points to a way to substantially reduce the basic assumptions of general relativity, and it may also have implications for other fields of physics such as the theory of elementary particles. The study was recently published in the scientific journal FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS.
In a conversation with the science website Prof. Yahlom explains: "In the beginning there was Newton, and Newton said that when we have two masses there is a force of attraction between them. He gave it an expression that talks about multiplying the masses by the universal gravitational constant and dividing by the distance squared between the two masses. But Newton did not explain to us why this force exists and then Einstein came and attacked the problem from a different angle. According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, which he published in 1915, ten years after the publication of the special theory of relativity, it is not that one mass exerts a force on another mass, but that the mass causes a curvature of space and this curvature is felt by the other body that is in the same curved space as a force of attraction."
"Einstein proposed a set of equations that show how mass (and energy) curves space. I am discussing the case that this mass is not missing, meaning that the space is not curved but rather flat. It turns out that a flat space can be of several types - we can think of a Euclidean space in which there are only spatial dimensions and no time dimensions. Einstein spoke of a four-dimensional space that could be a state that would include four dimensional spaces and have no time dimensions at all. We can also think of a space that has two spatial dimensions and two time dimensions, but what is accepted to think and what Einstein assumed, is the space we are familiar with that has 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Possible solutions to Einstein's equations can also be found in the other variations of a four-dimensional universe, but Einstein decided to choose the universe that we know axiomatically without explaining, in any case, this is the obvious and acceptable solution - a universe with three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, but he never Explain why he chose this way beyond the empirical reality. In other words he explained why from the theoretical point of view nature is structured in this way. Indeed, already in the first years after the publication of the theory of general relativity, more precisely in 1923, Arthur Eddington (the same researcher who in 1919 confirmed Einstein's theory of general relativity by observing the movement of the stars against the background of a solar eclipse in South America), proposed a theoretical possibility for a transition between a universe of three Space dimensions and one time dimension for a universe of two dimensions of any kind."
"In the article I published in the Foundation of Physics, I proved that only the solution of three plus one is a stable solution like a ball in a bowl. I took a solution that gives a flat space and caused a disturbance (perturbation) in it. After that I checked how the disorder affects (all of course in theory and formulas). I showed that only the solution known to us is the only stable solution. All the others are unstable (like a pencil standing on its tip), although in private cases Einstein's equations will be correct there as well.
And what does the discovery mean?
The discovery confirms and even strengthens Einstein's theory of general relativity in that the number of axioms and arbitrary assumptions is small compared to the original formulation. In science we try to explain the laws of nature with the help of a minimal number of assumptions and in this case I show that it was possible to formulate Einstein's theory of relativity with fewer assumptions and actually prove the existence of time instead of just assuming it. This may have meanings later. Since we do not categorically rule out all other solutions, it may be that in certain extreme situations, such as those used by people who study elementary particles, it will be possible to reach a reality where there will be no dimension of time but only dimensions of space. The particle people often use this kind of Euclidean space in their calculations as a mathematical tool. They present this as a weak angle (Weak Angle) where the time dimension becomes a spatial dimension.
Is implementation practical?
"Once Thompson was asked about the electron if it would ever have a practical use and he replied that probably not, but for now our entire economy is based on the electron. On the face of it, I don't see any practical use, but time will tell.
How does the University of Cambridge relate to this research?
"I did this work when I was on sabbatical at Cambridge University, very close to Eddington's own room in 2005-2006."
Tell me about yourself?
"I'm a physicist, but I've been working on theoretical physics within the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering at the Ariel University Center since 1999. Before that, I completed all three of my degrees at the Hebrew University and did a post-doctorate at the Hebrew University." According to him, during the sabbatical year in Cambridge, he did not feel any problem, "They love Israelis. Everyone knew where I came from, and even though some classes didn't like it, it didn't matter to the university people. The Jewish community also received me very well.
On the same subject: are the laws of nature the same everywhere in the universe?
35 תגובות
Why exactly is my message waiting???
Nak-see
In 1960 the second (and derived from it the hour) was defined as a certain part of a certain year (in the case of 1900) and not as a part of a day. This time is the result of a calculation and by no means related to the rate of rotation of the earth around its axis.
The definition was later changed to cesium clock time, because it is a measure that can be used simply, to calibrate other clocks for example.
And remember - the earth rotates on its axis every 23 hours and 56 minutes, more or less.
Nissim: "I don't understand your definition of an hour. The Earth does not rotate at a uniform rate, and in any case, the Earth's rotation time on its axis is not 24 hours."
This is exactly what they said in 1960 - then the Weights and Measures Committee abandoned the definition that was similar to what Chaim wrote, and moved to a definition similar to what you wrote..
Chaim Abgad
I don't understand your definition of an hour. The Earth does not rotate at a uniform rate, and in any case, the Earth's rotation time on its axis is not 24 hours.
The definition of a unit of time is with the help of a cesium clock regardless of the rotation of the earth.
It seems that there are some commenters here with partial and weak physical knowledge.
For example, "Three spaces of time: past, present and future" (from one of the responses, but not only there, but also in other responses)
Not that I'm against them. Rather. Welcome.
But they are "insolent" in giving lectures from their fevered minds, instead of presenting questions about the subjects they do not understand enough. (As a former yeshiva high school student - I recognize here the polemical pattern of the Talmud. There they present imagination as fact and also draw conclusions from it. This way is not the way of science)
Either way: when you do not have knowledge on a certain subject, it is appropriate not to give lectures. But clear your head. Ask, press, be interested. And maybe they will answer you.
(It seems that Michael Rothschild also noticed the ridiculous situation)
to Elimelech
I define an hour in such a way that it takes exactly 24 hours to make a circle relative to the sun.
And you make it difficult: "Perhaps in each experiment - will the earth move faster or slower?"
But you make a hidden assumption as if there is another, more real clock relative to which you determine "faster". This assumption contradicts the definition.
I will try to improve your question. If the time of phenomenon A is equal to the time of phenomenon B in experiment number 1, we know that it will be the same in experiment number 2.
But even here it turns out that the time is "uniform". After we defined "hour", "minute", "second", "year". We could measure the duration of phenomena in these terms. Newton's theory and the theory of relativity were developed based on the accumulated knowledge.
Time in the primary meaning is in terms of a period of life, what we call time is in fact a measurement of celestial bodies, when each movement in a sequence we gave an exclusive name, second, minute, hour, etc. And here a basic and interesting question arises and arises, at least to me, whether in any experiment or situation that is the heavenly bodies the sun and the moon Will they move faster or slower? Because if not (I assume not, and not even a second was added to the life of any creature according to the measurement of the heavenly bodies from which time and the clock are derived), how can it be said that the experiment affected time? Just as Uri Geller stopped the clock and not the time 🙂 I would appreciate an explanation....
I just noticed the nonsense in response 24.
Real entertainment.
oak:
There are many questions that can still be asked after Einstein but these are not your questions.
Force is nothing but the derivative of potential. That's what it always was and that's what it always will be. If there are potential differences, then by definition there will be power.
No additional dimension is needed either.
I don't think you really delved into the subject.
"But Newton did not explain to us why this force exists and then Einstein came and attacked the problem from a different angle."
Partially true.
Einstein did attack the problem from a different angle but he also did not explain to us why this force exists.
He didn't solve the problem but just shifted it to a different kind of problem.
Suppose a mass distorts space and creates a "potential pit".
Still, for another mass to be attracted to the same potential well, gravity is required. (Otherwise, what prevents it from remaining at rest on the slope?)
I mean, Einstein didn't solve the problem. Now, we need a global force orthogonal to the XNUMXD space we live in for gravitation to work.
And since this force is orthogonal to three-dimensional space, it must come from a fourth spatial dimension (not including time).
I have a very simple way of looking at it, the lack of understanding comes from the inability to look at
This is in an unbiased way because of the early opinions about the concept of "time".
The very name "time as the fourth dimension" is misleading and makes you think of time as another dimension added to the three familiar dimensions of space,
While it is actually another interpretation of the same phenomenon of space (the three dimensions of space)
You can even say time = space space = time
"Time" is the time it takes for something (energy substance) to move from point A to point B in space
Without space there is no time because all space is the same point (singularity) and if it is the same point
Everything that reads there reads at the same "time" and then of course there is no time,
Without a relative difference between two events in time (which actually defines the phenomenon of time) there is no space and no time
Let's go back to energy = matter matter = energy
Everyone already understands this part, this is about a kind of """phenomenon""" in quotation marks
Triangles
Let's call this phenomenon simply X
Matter is an interpretation of X and energy is also a different interpretation under different circumstances for the same phenomenon
"X"
The same logic also works in time and space or by its better known name "SPACE-TIME"
(I did not use the word space because this word also has prejudices)
in simple words
The speed of light is the absolute speed!
No "matter" or "energy" can "move" faster "through space"
These are the four interpretations of the "X" phenomenon
Let's call the X phenomenon by another name,
The ether or the Higgs field (which I personally do not believe is made of particles although some PhD students will disagree with me) or space-time
In fact, the Higgs field is space time and its stiffness allows the existence of phenomena
When something moves within the Higgs field it can interact with it or not
Energy as we know moves in it without resistance at the speed of light or more precisely
Light moves in the Higgs field at "Einstein's constant" the absolute speed without resistance
While matter moves at a slower speed because it interacts if the Higgs field which
Slows it down (a type of friction) a phenomenon called "mass" (resistance to movement in space)
And in reaction the matter also distorts the Higgs field (creates disturbances in it) a phenomenon which we
Called "gravity".
The inability to understand these principles stems from preconceptions about concepts
that are forced to use them to describe the phenomena we observe
The only way to truly understand is to abandon preconceived notions and come clean
Which for a person who has studied in a framework all his life and had to absorb prejudices will be very difficult
And as one of the great philosophers of modern times wrote
Jean Louis Symbion
I am your negotiator
I sit here without bias nor prejudice
This is the simple truth of my presence
Not luck nor fame
I also think that Samaria College should be turned into a university in its own right.
By the way, we talked a lot here, but I hope that at least some of you know how to appreciate the fact that this is really an exciting discovery.
point:
And where is the confusion you were talking about?
Your words are true, but I don't see how they are related to the discussion.
Eran, there shouldn't be a problem, certainly not in the dimensions you described. You probably entered when the server was busy because of the scientist or because of his neighbors to the server. But in any case, have you tried logging in with Firefox? The site is also well adapted to Firefox and not only to Explorer.
There seems to be confusion here.
A space has N dimensions if you need N numbers (vector) to describe all the points in the space.
Even in Newton's time we needed 4 numbers (3 spatial and 1 temporal) to describe a point in the universe.
Until Einstein, they thought that we move at a constant speed through the time dimension, and that movements in the spatial dimensions do not affect or are affected by the movement in the time dimension. (meaning we always move into the future at a constant rate common to the entire universe, meaning time is absolute).
Einstein's innovation is that he showed that we all move at a constant speed which is the speed of light through 4 dimensional space. Therefore there is an influence between each dimension and another. The faster I move in a spatial dimension, the less fast I move in a temporal dimension (because the total velocity vector should be the speed of light).
Another interesting point is that time in a vector differs from space in that it is multiplied by the imaginary number i. That is, time is a virtual dimension. And it's all one big illusion.
I agree the server is weak and so is the software and the database
Eran
It's a function of money and the site's server is weak.
The site itself is also not optimally written and has a lot of security holes.
Maybe if he puts in ads he will have money to upgrade.
Oh! How many keystrokes in one short answer!
giving:
I think the answer to your question is positive.
giving:
I think the answer to your question is positive.
Eran:
This is proof of the equivalence of the dimensions:
If you have more bandwidth or more memory capacity you can save loading time.
Eden:
The dimensions define the entire space and determine all the places where we can be and not only where we are now.
After all, you are in a different place from me, and where I sit, someone else once sat.
Oops, I'm another Eran, not the previous commenter....
Father, speaking of time, are you aware that the loading time of this site is very very very slow? Unlike YNet for example which comes up in about 5 seconds to the screen, this site sometimes takes more than half a minute until something appears, and not only that, but during all this time the site freezes the entire computer and you cannot perform any other operation on the computer until the news page is loaded....
for your information,
Thanks.
So the final conclusion from your responses that you say that now this second you are in you are in the four dimensions at the same time...
So why make this division into dimensions?
Eden:
You are very wrong and Yehuda is right.
The parable you bring is not similar to the parable.
Think about the dimensions of the space like this:
Dimension A: from south to north
Dimension B: from east to west
Dimension C: from bottom to top
The three tenses of past present and future are similar here to:
In the first dimension: south of you, near you, north of you.
In the second dimension: east of you, near you, west of you.
In the third dimension: under you, at you, above you.
The description you describe as movement in space is not movement on one dimension of space but on all three dimensions and therefore is not correct to equate it to movement in the one dimension of time where we already have (without additional dimensions) past, present and future
Eden
The difference between the combinations of the several dimensions of space and time is expressed in the different topologies that can be housed in these spaces. Different types of sheets and flow of different curvature such as torus and different knots. The implication for time itself can be expressed in different connections of the time sequence. That is to say that there may be topologies that allow time to jump from the present to the past or from the future to the present or all kinds of strange loops in the time sequence. Traveling through this kind of topology for example you may find yourself aging very quickly in one face and the next becoming a cat nurse or even going backwards in evolution and finding yourself cracking peanuts on a tree in the jungle.
If the dimensions are length, width and depth, then when you throw a certain object, does it go through all the dimensions? And everything that works in a circular way works in two dimensions at the same time? Or is it more correct to refer to it in three dimensions of time like a pendulum at time X is seen at place X? And according to its mass density, the energies and the pressure!
And like the earth that revolves around the sun, it determines the seasons for us, so what is correct to say to say now (present) that God is in the spring before (past) it was in winter and soon (future) it will be summer?
These are the three times that can be but if we refer to him according to his movement as soon as he moves for example:
If he doesn't move and he stays put will we stay in the present? It won't be easy to have a different future... You can say that the movement determines the future, that we change our future, we are aware of the past, but if in the past there was summer at time X, then because of the change of movement there is no longer summer at time X.
If an object hits the earth and the earth deviates from its orbit there will be an abnormal movement but the dimensions are before the abnormality was created (past, present and future) after the abnormality was created (past, present and future) another abnormality (past, present and future) these are three options that can be if there was or not was or was otherwise…
Or what you say if we were to turn left (past, present and future) right (past, present and future) forward (past, present and future) back (past, present and future) up (past, present and future) because it is clear that every direction was a deviation Creating a different future in the end! Even if it is in dimension 1 as you say he could make 2 movements to the right and left for example and each would create a different future.
You can create many dimensions this way, but if you focus it on time you see that if the object is in constant motion (past, present and future) if the object deviates from the movement and stops (past, present and future) and if it deviates otherwise and deviates from its course (past, present and future) there are 3 options in total "about…
I would appreciate more detailed answers...
Good Day.
Eden.
2 dimensions of space (here and there) and 2 dimensions of time (then and now)
for the era,
: )
refine
Three dimensions of his time are not past, present and future. It's one zemo dimension. Each dimension contains past, present and future, and there should be three of these.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And if we did three dimensions of time (past, present and future)
And one dimension of space? It does not make sense? The mass that distorts the space depends on the density of the mass, the energy and the pressure, the greater the space is stretched, and this lengthens the path, and if the density of the mass, the energy, and the pressure are smaller, it shortens the path... and this means that the shorter the path, the shorter the time to reach it and exactly the opposite... Thus near Sde Gravity times are shortened depending on the gravitational field which of course is calculated according to the mass density, energy and pressure!
Opinion: According to Einstein's experiment if you think about the rubber sheet that stretches if it was not stretched then all the balls get closer and eventually stick to the biggest ball...
What teaches us about the universe is that our universe is not expanding, it is probably stretching because if we weren't on our "way" to the sun...
The center should be a university, this should not be prevented just because of the location - Ariel, on the contrary! More than once respectable articles are published.
"Other fields in physics such as the theory of elementary particles" from this theory is it quantum ?? Thanks to the explainer