Augmenting Relativity

The overwhelming success of general relativity for mainstream science's macroscopic reality of continuous space and time cannot be overstated. Likewise, quantum mechanics represents an even more successful understanding of our microscopic reality of amplitude and phase. All of relativity’s reported successes, though, are really due to the two key notions of mass-energy equivalence (MEE) and gravity time delay of light. Lorentz invariance, the constant of the speed of light irrespective of velocity, simply follows directly from MEE and means that the gravity deflection of light follows from both light’s gravity MEE and the extra time delay of light.

Likewise, it is the quantum coherence of microscopic matter as amplitude and phase that is largely responsible for quantum's microscopic success stories. The quantum story is built upon space and motion, just as is the GR story, but for GR, space and motion do not apply everywhere in the universe while quantum amplitude and phase apply everywhere. In the GR or mainstream science, velocity and acceleration in empty space make up frames of reference from which emerge changes in inertial matter and time delays of light. Gravity affects light once as light’s MEE mass and then again as gravity’s acceleration and red shift and so gravity deflection of light is twice that of just light’s MEE gravity deflection.

Augmenting continuous space, motion, and time with the more general notions of discrete matter and time extends the validity of gravity to all of the universe. In a sense, this means that space and motion actually lie within the the domain of discrete changes in inertial matter and the time delay of light by gravity, not the other way around. In other words, augmenting continuous space and time means that the basic principles of MEE and gravity time delays still apply to that part of the universe. however, the spatio-temporal tensors of GR do not apply outside of the limits of continuous space and time and so a change in inertial matter emerges as motion in spatial frames of reference and it is from changes in gravity that space emerges from gravity time delay. Thus, space and motion are both within the domain of changes in inertial matter and time delays and not the other way around as shown in the figure below. The total time delay for light due to gravity is after all a factor of two greater that of just light’s gravity MEE time delay.

Any model of the universe with both gravity MEE and time delay will also be consistent with the observed gravity light deflections, but there are further notions of relativity that do not necessarily follow from gravity MEE and time delay. For example, GR lacks an absolute frame of reference even though the CMB seems to be an absolute frame of reference and given an absolute CMB frame simply limits the scale for GR tensor algebra.

Also, the determinate geodesic paths of GR objects in a 4D spacetime are inconsistent with the microscopic probabilistic quantum paths of the very successful quantum action. In fact, the determinate GR geodesics in effect do away with the quantum notion of time since time becomes just a GR displacement and it is the 4D geodesic paths that then determine the futures of all objects from the initial conditions of the universe.

In contrast, quantum mechanics shows by many different measurements that there are no determinate geodesic paths for quantum objects. In fact, there is a fundamental lack of knowledge of certain quantum paths and a fundamental uncertainty principle limits all quantum paths. Yet despite the limitations of GR, the predictions of MEE and gravity time delay corrections allow our GPS satellites to work and explain the deflection of starlight and the time delays of quasar radio sources by the gravity of the sun as well as the lensing of galaxies by other galaxies. All of these measurements are consistent with gravity MEE and time delays and so any theory that incorporates MEE and gravity time delays will also be consistent with all of these observations as well.

The further notions of a lack of an absolute frame of reference in GR and GR determinate geodesics are then both open to question and neither has been verified by measurement.  The CMB does seem to represent an absolute frame of reference that then closes all motion in the universe and the well demonstrated quantum uncertainty does seem to rule out any determinate GR geodesics. Thus there are still notable limitations embedded within general relativity despite GR’s notable successes with gravity MEE and time delays. Furthermore, as science better understands the universe, the limitations of GR become even more apparent.

Black hole singularities are inconsistent with quantum action

Probably the most famous of all of general relativity’s limitations is the notion of a black hole singularity. Given enough mass, light’s gravity time delay will eventually be sufficient to capture light into a singularity and therefore stop atomic time at an event horizon, two well worn predictions that simply cannot be the whole story.

Black hole event horizons are inconsistent with quantum action

A particle of matter that encounters the event horizon of a black hole is subject to two quite different predictions; gravity and quantum. According to much of the historical black hole modeling, such a particle simply becomes part of the mass accretion and loses all information about its past.

More recent calculations find that, prior to reaching the event horizon, a particle is ripped into successively smaller pieces until the very, very small Planck limit. Those tiny pieces of matter begin collapsing before they accrete and therefore never actually become part of the primary black hole. These eternally collapsing objects, eco’s, take the place of the primary black hole, but do not really resolve the quantum paradox.

Quantum calculations predict something for a particle of matter at an event horizon, tearing into matter and antimatter particles, resulting in so-called Hawking radiation. The black hole event horizon turns into a quantum firewall and just like with the eco, accretion action stops near the event horizon. There just cannot be these two very different fates for the same neutral particles.

Proper time is inconsistent with quantum time

Proper time is a key notion of GR and that proper time then becomes the fourth displacement of 4D spacetime. Ironically, time as a GR spatial displacement in effect does away with the uncertainty of time. Because all motion in GR occurs as a result of gravity along determinate geodesic paths, the future is completely determined by the past.

Quantum time, on the other hand, is both reversible and uncertain and there is no stopping quantum time at a GR event horizon or anywhere else in the universe. However, time is simply a quantum progress variable and there is therefore no quantum expectation value for a time duration or delay.

It is clear that the future for a given object simply cannot be both deterministic by the principles of GR and probabilistic by the principles of QM and it is likely that both GR and quantum times will therefore need some kind of augmentation.

Dark matter and dark energy not explained

Dark matter is an extra gravity correction that explains the stabilities of galaxies and galaxy clusters while dark energy is yet another gravity correction needed to hold the universe together as the CMB. The absence of any sign of these gravity corrections in GR is a little disconcerting and seems like a major flaw of GR to simply invent matter and energy objects.

Determinate geodesics inconsistent with quantum action

One of the basic assumptions of GR is that gravity action distorts or curves the 4D spacetime and that objects simply follow predetermined geodesics as minimum energy paths. Of course, quantum action not only does not distort 4D spacetime, quantum action results in likely but not determinate futures. In quantum gravity, there will very likely be a number of possible futures instead of a determinate one.

Lack of amplitude, phase coherence, interference, and entanglement

Our quantum reality depends on both the phase as well as the amplitude of matter. However, gravity force in GR only deals with the norms of quadrupole matter and time and so there is no role for phase coherence or interference or entanglement with gravity. Since all of these notions of amplitude and phase figure prominently in quantum action, it is a major flaw in GR that there is no corresponding quantum monopole or quadrupole gravity to complete our quantum reality of dipole charge.

Planck limit inconsistent with quantum uncertainty principle

Once a particle gets small enough, its own gravity will collapse it into a microscopic event horizon where time stops and quantum action does not apply. But quantum action functions everywhere in the universe, even inside of black holes and there is no stopping quantum time. Quantum action limits the divisibility of matter and space to the uncertainty principle and to the quark, but there is still something wrong with quantum time.

No absolute frame in GR

The basic relativistic tensor math of GR depends on the absence of an absolute frame of reference within continuous space and time. However, the CMB seems to represent just such an absolute frame of reference for everywhere in the universe. In GR, the lack of an absolute frame means that we only see light in the universe within our event horizon or light cone and that there are past events that are now beyond that event horizon. For example, the universe expansion means that the CMB will eventually move beyond our event horizon in about one billion years or so.

It would seem to be much more likely that the CMB represents an absolute frame of reference that all can seen and that necessarily closes the universe. We would not then be in an expanding universe at all and the CMB will still be a CMB in one billion years, albeit somewhat evolved.

Quantum time is not consistent with proper time of GR

A determinate time in GR is incompatible with the uncertainty of quantum time. Quantum atomic clocks tick very precisely but their precision is limited by the uncertainty principle. Moreover gravity clocks that tick like millisecond pulsars are also very precise and yet ms pulsar gravity clocks all decay. While that decay can be largely due to gravity and/or EM radiation, there is an average intrinsic decay as well of 0.255 ppb/yr. That intrinsic decay means that ms pulsars tell two distinct times as their pulse periods and as their average decay.

It is therefore likely that quantum time also has both atom pulse periods and the same slow decay of atomic time as ms pulsars; 0.255 ppb/yr. This means that time actually has two dimensions; an atomic time period and a gravity decay period and that two dimensional quantum time would then be consistent with the two dimensional gravity time of gravity ms pulsars.

Quantum space and motion are inconsistent with GR space and motion

Empty space and motion in empty space are both infinitely divisible notions that deeply underscore much of mainstream science. But while quantum space and motion are both quantized, GR space and motion are both continuous and it is clear that notions of space and motion are simply fundamentally incompatible between QM and GR.

Many very smart people have worked very hard for nearly a century to make space and motion consistent between gravity and quantum, but to no avail. In fact, the notions of infinite divisibility for both space and motion have actually been problematic since the time of Zeno of Elea, the Greek philosopher of 460 BCE.

The continuum of sensation of objects that fills time contrasts with the void of sensation that we presume exists as space

Unlike the void of empty space, for which we have no sensation, time is filled with a continuum of waves of sensations. There are no empty voids of time since all of light, sound, touch, smell, and taste shine continuously onto us and our senses with a continuum of sensory information about objects and their backgrounds. Our sensation of object changes and time delays result in neural packets of aware matter from which consciousness extracts information useful for prediction of action.

It is from this continuum of sensation that our consciousness imagines objects and also ignores or renormalizes any background time delays. Even though there are no voids of sensation in time, our minds assign differences between object and background time delays to the lonely nothing of empty space. Space emerges to keep object sensations different from background sensations.

Objects that we sense have a different time delay from the backgrounds that we sense along with those objects. Our minds use space and motion to represent the difference in time delays as an absolute time or Cartesian distance that separates objects from other objects and their backgrounds. Space and motion, in this sense, simply emerge as whatever they need to be in order to properly represent the object changes and time delays of sensation, but space and motion do not exist in the same way that matter and time exist.

Therefore, the lonely nothing of empty space and motion within that space are notions that emerge from a more primitive reality of object changes and time delays. The nothing that we imagine as space and the motion of objects in that nothing of space are both simply very useful representations of consciousness. Notions of space and motion help consciousness keep track of objects and make predictions about the futures of those objects.

Cartesian Space and Time Emerge from Quantum Aether

Space is an infinitely divisible empty void that makes up most of the universe according to common understanding. In other words, space is nothing and we do not sense space and it is only the something of objects that we do sense as part of our outer lives. We sense objects and their backgrounds with different time delays and from the difference in those object time delays emerges the nothing of empty voids of time and space between those objects. Although discrete sensations of objects continuously bombard us, we all believe very fervently that a continuum of time and empty space exists as a container for objects. Even though we do not sense space, we are never without sensation of objects of our outer lives. We sense objects from a continuum of discrete sensations at different time delays or perspectives and those time delays involve various sensations and from those discrete neural sensations emerge the singular nothing of space; we simply believe a singular space exists because that is the way the we believe the universe of our outer life is.

Although the notions of space and motion are very useful for making sense out of our reality and predicting action, continuous space and motion do have their limitations, both at very large and very small scales. Space and motion are also very different between macroscopic general relativity and microscopic quantum action and that difference is a source of endless confusion. There is a more primitive reality of discrete matter and time delay from which continuous space and motion emerge and for very large and very small scales, this primitive reality closes the universe.

The figure below shows how the three orders of consciousness represent our perception of the universe. Our first order Cartesian reality represents objects outside of our mind in our outer life on trajectories in an otherwise empty void of space. This is how we view most of reality and that first order consciousness has been very successful for life in general. Gravity is the main force acting in our outer lives and the outer life is called objective or things in and of themselves or Descartes body or Kant’s phenomenon and this is how the inner life of our brains work. We learn a Cartesian consciousness of an outer life even before we learn to speak and simply come to believe with an inner life the outer life just as it is.

The second order is a relational reality in which objects are made up of pieces and parts held together by all of gravity, charge, strong force, weak force, and even the very weak bonds of neural synapses. Our second order reality represents the world of ideas or subjects inside of our mind and of discrete sensation that never stops. We learn these more elaborate stories about how the world works mainly in school, but also on our own and from our parents and friends. This more precise view of reality helps us be part of the cooperative civilization that we now are part of. Although gravity force still determines much of action, it is the amplitude and phase of charge force that is really what holds microscopic matter together.

This relational order is what is called our subjective reality of our inner life where each person has a separate and unique experience with objects as ideas. A relational inner life is Descartes’ mind or Kant’s noumenon and is how reason works. With the reason of our inner lives, we can imagine many more possible futures in the superposition states of the aware matter of our minds. Our minds interact with other aware matter and form bonds and conflicts through sensation and the resultant cooperation and conflicts among people allows us to reach futures that other sentients cannot even imagine.

There is a further spectral order of consciousness, which is a level of consciousness that most people do not experience. With spectral order a matter spectrum represents each object as amplitudes of matter just like a time spectrum represents each object as a pulse of matter in time. The peaks in a matter spectrum are amplitudes with either plus or minus phase and represent all of the interactions or relations of all of the pieces of matter that make up that object's matter spectrum. Thus even the EEG spectrum of neural aware matter represents all of the bonds and conflicts of aware matter in the brain, now as a power spectrum of consciousness. There is also a great deal of phase information embedded in neural aware matter, but the typical EEG does not measure the phase information of neural aware.

Our reality is determined by a continuum of never ending discrete sensations and the actions of sensation always involve the norms or squares of amplitude. Although neural phase coherence does affect our reality, we mainly see those effects with light and electricity. We do not normally sense phase as distinct from the intensity of matter objects and their time delays. Thus spectral consciousness is a level of awareness that is beyond just the typical Cartesian and relational realities that we experience every day.

Although the notions of space and motion are extremely useful in many contexts, space and motion often confuse our notions of matter and time and that confusion has thus far precluded any unification of gravity and charge forces for mainstream science. In order to unify forces, science must first resolve the confusion of space and time by realizing the limits of space and motion. By setting aside the more intuitive conjugates of space and momentum that are such an integral part of our Cartesian and relational consciousness, science might then use our more primitive spectral reality.

In order to build a quantum reality, science must first recognize the limits of space and motion compared with the alternative conjugates of matter and time for the same quantum reality. The conjugates of matter and time nicely unite gravity and charge forces by aligning the concept of a two dimensional time between gravity and charge as a unified quantum force. The notions of space and motion then emerge from the actions of matter in time and we see space for what it is; a convenient white board for keeping track of objects and action.

In fact, it is ironic that we seem to be more certain about the existence of the absolute nothingness of space as an empty object than we are certain of any object that we actually do perceive. After all, it is certainly true that there is something that separates objects from each other in time. So it is quite natural to conclude that there are large amounts of the absolutely static nothing in between objects within the infinitely divisible void of static space.

Even when we sense an object, it is not always apparent whether or not that object actually exists. Our senses are bombarded with a continuum of light, sound, touch, smell, and taste and our minds use only a small fraction of that sensation to represent an object. The object could still be an illusion or it could be a mirror reflection or it could be a picture of an object or even a hologram projection of an object. And yet even though we do not see or sense the nothing that is space, we always sense the something of objects and we invariably conclude that the different time delays of objects means that an empty void exists between objects that we call space. However, there is never an absence of object sensation in the continuum of experience even while we never sense space.

Continuous time is then primal belief that we have as part of the foundation for understanding the universe and it appears that the empty void of an infinitely divisible space as well as motion in space both emerge from the actions of matter. That is, the infinitely divisible nothing in which we all fervently and intuitively believe, really just emerges from a simpler primitive reality of just matter and time.

It should not be too surprising that the three dimensions of Cartesian space and motion emerge from a simpler primitive spectral reality. After all, a belief in space as an infinitely divisible void of nothing is a kind of oxymoron. To believe in the existence of an object like a tree is one thing; but to believe in the existence of the nothing of empty space is quite another thing…literally a belief in nothing as something. We sense objects at different time delays or perspectives and suppose therefore that space exists as a nothing that is what separates those objects. But what then fills space? There was a persistent belief up until the last century that an aether filled space and so gravity and charge forces transmitted by means of aether.

However, once mainstream science became comfortable with the magic of action at a distance for the force fields of gravity and charge in an absolute vacuum, the possibility of the aether of Newton faded into the uncertainty of time.

So why do we continue to believe so fervently in something that is really nothing at all? Space and motion emerge proportional to time and matter to order our reality and we effortlessly sense the motion of objects and actions through the empty spaces outside of our minds. This is the Cartesian reality of the Figure. We imagine those objects on various time trajectories in this object of space even though we never sense the space between objects. Rather we sense objects and their motion at different time delays and from different perspectives emerges the empty void of space to separate objects from each other. Empty space then seems to provide a way for those objects to move about.

In fact, it is time delay and matter change and action that separates objects, not really space. In other words, space and motion emerge from a continuum of matter and action that fills all time and it is rather the conjugates of time and matter that are the true axioms of a primitive quantum action. When we imagine action, we first begin with empty space and then imagine an object moving in that empty space and so time simply becomes equivalent to motion in space.

If instead we first imagine time delay as a primal dimension, object matter changes by exchange of matter with us and other objects in order to bond and conflict in a never ending continuum of sensation that involves exchanges of matter. Our minds extract certain changes in the matter of objects over time as action from which emerges our notion of object motion through Cartesian space. Just like science often uses time as a distance in measuring the cosmos, we also use time delay in many common descriptions of distances on earth.

And yet we continue to believe very fervently in the empty void of a continuum of space that defines the time delays of our journeys in life. If time is a primal dimension that truly separates objects, then it certainly also seems reasonable to suppose that Cartesian space and motion simply emerge from time delays and matter change. All of the spatial dimensions of forwards and backwards, left and right, up and down, seem so intuitive that we forget how complex and difficult it was as children to learn a Cartesian consciousness.

We fully realize that as children we learn to speak and understand language, a likewise difficult and complex skill, but we do not seem to realize that we must first learn about objects and motion well before language would even make sense. We and other objects move so effortlessly through the emptiness of space that existence seems impossible without both an empty and continuous space and time and mainstream science calls its paradigm spacetime for this very reason.

There does not seem to be any science or any Western philosophy that supposes space emerges from the changes of objects in time embedded within a continuum of sensation over time. There is, however, much Eastern thought that teaches about the illusion of reality and it does turn out that our notions of Cartesian space do end up distorting and therefore limiting our understanding of the true primitive natures of the axioms of time and matter.

Instead of recognizing time as a distance that is always connected to a determined future, there is also a second time dimension. In fact, the past is not really a part of time and the past is only the fossil memories and objects that we use to predict the future. Although we think of time as a continuous single dimension with a past, present, and future, this makes time just another dimension of Cartesian space.

Eastern philosophy does reveal the illusion of our sensory reality and Hindu Vedic beliefs emphasize the illusion of reality, the Maya. It is only with a lifetime of ritualistic meditation that one can ever hope to understand this illusion. Buddhism likewise teaches that sensation misleads us about reality and it is only by a highly prescribed ritual meditation that we can hope to understand the illusion of reality. It is only by quieting the maelstrom of the aware matter of our mind that we lose self and thereby achieve a better understanding of the world. However, we can never really step out of the continuum of sensation over time since we are embedded into the universe.

A much more straightforward explanation for these intuitive notions of an illusory reality is that Cartesian space and object motion through space emerges from a simpler reality. Space and motion emerge from the time delays and exchanges of matter among objects, which is the action of matter time that is our primitive reality. The neural packets of aware matter that make up conscious thought come from the mimes of sensation. Mimes are the brain matter structures that mime or replicate the sensation of an object and then allow us to make sense out of sensation. The irony of reality is that our consciousness is really also just matter changes in time and so in a very real sense, space and consciousness both emerge from the primitive characteristics of time delay and matter in our brain.

A finite line in Cartesian space nevertheless has an infinity of points and we associate similar infinities of points with all space and time. On a line, there is a current position as a point as well as preceding and following points and time then emerges as a similar line that has a present that connects past and future. In contrast, a Cartesian line that emerges from time delay is not infinitely divisible but instead is made up of moments since time delays are moments. A series of moments would be a memory of the past, but there is no action to replay this memory and the past is not therefore part of time’s dimension. We imagine a set of future moments as possibilities and so the present is a moment of memory and action while the past is only memory stored as brain matter, a fossil of the past. There is not just one determined future since the present moment is only one of many possible futures, but our sensations represent a continuum of discrete moments of time.

Neither a straight Cartesian line nor even a single connected line emerges from time delays. We can predict the future perfectly well with only the time delays and changes of matter in time, which is action and we do not really need the a priori notion of motion in Cartesian space. However, Cartesian space and motion are still extremely useful and only misleading for predicting action at very large or very small scales.

So a mathematical representation of a quantum reality can predict action equally well with the conjugates of space and motion or with matter changes and time. In fact, our minds fill in most of what we perceive as motion in Cartesian space from just a few sensations that we extract from the continuum over time and that is the reason that a quantum reality without space and motion is therefore difficult to imagine. The very powerful Cartesian notion that evolution has given our minds simplifies the complex time-ordered continuum of sensations of matter changes for objects in time that our minds process. The mimes of sensation then result in our feelings about objects in our primitive minds and those feelings result in both conscious and unconscious actions.

It is important that there are two dimensions for time and not just one; a moment of atomic action and the decay of those moments as memory or intrinsic decay. What we think of as past is just a memory of action as experience and not a dimension of time, so time is not just a memory and yet our past is only such a decaying fossil memory of action. Time is always both a decay along with an action and since we cannot journey into a past memory, it does not make any sense to journey to a past event.

Unlike a return journey in Cartesian space, the past is merely a fossil memory of actions, nothing more and nothing less, even though memory is an intrinsic part of time along with action. As we approach an object, the time distance we journey is the memory of our stride or the turns of a wheel or the clicks of an odometer as well as the action of our stride, wheel turns, or odometer clicks.

Matter changes are a part of what time is and those matter changes can be our own memory or they can be the hands of a clock or the sand of an hourglass or the geological layers of sedimentary rock or the spin the earth or the pulsar timekeepers of the cosmos. The memory of time can also be in the calendar of the year, in the relics of civilizations, or in the fossil record of life. The matter changes that we call the past are different from the action and memory that we call the present and that is different from the superposition of possible futures and so time is not a linear dimension as past, present, and future.

What we call past and present are both simply a part of the time dimension as memories of events, either our own memories of the fossil record of action of a clock or calendar. What we call the present is then the two dimensions of decay and action, which is what time actually is. What we call the future are the many possibilities of action that we imagine and there is not a determinate future.

A principle in science known as the microscopic reversibility of time seems to show that time is reversible. At a microscopic scale, the scientist/philosopher Poincaré supposed that the collisions of atoms or subatomic particles in space are completely symmetric in space and time and therefore completely reversible. In fact, Poincaré showed mathematically that there is therefore a finite probability that any configuration of particles will exactly repeat itself over time.

In the quantum atomic world, there is also a strong principle of time reversal symmetry, but that is simply a characteristic of one time dimension, atomic time, and the principle does not consider the universe decay time as a second time dimension. Once science recognizes that we live in a universe with a second time dimension as matter decay, matter decay introduces a very slight asymmetry in time as well as determining the nature of all force. Thus, even at the microscopic level, matter exchange among objects and therefore also matter action has the well-defined time arrow of matter decay.

Even at the subatomic scale, time is only a memory of action even as Cartesian distance emerges from the time between sensations of objects. The emergence of Cartesian space simplifies the complexity of the continuum of time-ordered sensation and helps us do what we really need to do…predict action. What we really need to do with sensation is predict what is likely out of all the possible futures to where we might journey by our chosen actions. In fact, consciousness itself is really just another representation of time since consciousness is our memory of the actions that are the neural impulses of our minds’ aware matter.

We imagine futures with our minds and then select a desirable future based on the singular feeling of our primitive minds and choose actions to journey to those futures. We never actually reach the exact future that we imagine, both because of the imprecision and uncertainty of action but also because of the imprecision and uncertainty of feeling. During a journey, our feelings evolve, others’ feelings evolve, and the world around us evolves. By the time we reach the future that we desired, the world has changed and along with it, our feelings and the future we imagined have also changed.

The mathematics of science called quantum mechanics can predict action with just the representation of matter, time, and phase. Quantum mechanics and its wavefunctions only depend on a conjugate pair of operators and those operators do not have to be the typical choices of Cartesian space and momentum. In fact, avoiding the empty void of space resolves many quantum conundrums, and that includes the conundrum of quantum gravity.

Coherent quantum states can persist across the time of the universe and coherence is a common feature of quantum action that results in something known as entanglement. But Cartesian space and motion do not permit the coherence of two events across the universe since coherence seems to imply coincidence and instantaneous action by the strictures of relativity.

Our intuition demands that, with increasing separation of an empty void of space between objects, objects become increasingly independent of each other. All effects by this logic must have local causes by local objects and therefore causes and effects are always limited by the speed of light in space. But quantum coherency seems to violate a local causal principle since quantum states can be instantaneously coherent across the universe. Yet this quantum coherence of states is always tied to a single common source and therefore a single local cause. Therefore the fact of coherence with a source is indeed limited by the speed of light in space.

It is the emergence of Cartesian space from matter time that intrudes into our interpretation of motion through space as time and velocity. What about the speed of light? The speed of light actually emerges from the decay rate of the universe matter in this epoch and the radius of the hydrogen atom. We project a gaekron action of time as the void of Cartesian space and the speed of light in this epoch then emerges from the three constants of matter time.

Universal matter, matter exchange, and decay are the sources of all time and gaekron decays more or less uniformly throughout the universe. So gaekron matter and decay together also define space while the objects of observable matter are gaekron matter condensates that are only a portion of the basic gaekron matter of the universe.

The presence of coherent matter across the universe is not just an anomaly of microscopic quantum mechanics, in matter time coherency and interference are causal features of all reality. Every time we observe an object, what we sense is still just one of many possible futures for that object. From a whole series of sensations, we deduce the reality of that object and are then usually very good at predicting the future of an object’s action. Once we sense an object reality, the other possible futures decay away very quickly, even if those possibilities existed on the other side of the universe.

However, we are not always correct about the reality of an object and we can be mistaken. But our very survival often depends on how well we predict object action, so that survival naturally favors a consciousness that better predicts action. Now those objects can be inanimate like cars and houses or they can be people or animals or they can be galaxies or galaxy clusters.

The existence of coherent states across the universe is linked to a coherence of matter amplitude phase, not matter intensity or proper time. In other words, coherent matter amplitudes can evolve as two or more different possibilities from the same precursor source event. The time distances as well as the matter amplitudes between those two possibilities differ only in phase coherence and as long as there is phase coherence, the fates are linked. Normally we do not think of phase as a causal agent, but there are any number of phase effects that exceed the speed of light, so-called superluminality.

Phase coherence can occur over what emerges as a very great Cartesian distance, but those coherent states are linked by the same time distance from a common precursor source event. Thus the time distance to the precursor event necessarily limits to the speed of light any communication of phase by either observer. Even though we imagine that a particle observed on path A instantaneously precludes its observation on path B, that is only one of many possible futures for that particle.

Observer A can not know of any other possibilities without more knowledge and that extra knowledge is necessarily limited by the time action of light from the source. If an observer sees a particle on path A, it is reasonable to assume that that particle was always on a journey from the event along path A. But since it is equally likely that another observer on path B will see the same particle and if that event occurs, the particle will not then appear on path A.

What gives? Which path was the particle on? How can a single particle seem to be simultaneously on both Cartesian paths A and B? Furthermore, observation of the particle on path A seems to instantaneously preclude its observation on path B. How can this cause be instantaneous? This piecemeal reality appears to spread the possibilities of a particle over the wide expanse of the cosmos.

Instead of the speed of light in space, time action is limited by the matter decay rate of the universe. Since all force is due to the exchange and decay of gaekron, all action in the universe is in some sense always coherent with all other action and always limited by that universe decay rate. The appearance of an object simply means that there is constructive interference of gaekron in time while the absence of an object in time means that there is destructive interference of matter, which is what we call space and is the absence of matter in the time between the objects. The absence of objects is due to destructive interference and simply represents dephasing of gaekron matter.

However, gaekron matter does not fill space, but rather space emerges as a convenient and simple representation in our minds for both gaekron matter and its changes in objects over time. Space and motion emerge from the actual complexity of sensation and action in time. The time between sensations is what separates objects and an object matter spectrum shows its relations with all other objects and so the matter spectrum is a complementary representation of an object in matter time.

It is obvious that most of the universe is made up of empty space and that most of an object is also made up of empty space since there is space between atoms of any solid object and there is even more space between electrons and nuclei and then even more space between quarks in the nucleon. But, once again, the Cartesian space within an object emerges from the changes in its matter spectrum over time. One might also say that all of objects and the universe are just different peaks in a gaekron matter spectrum, but that statement would not be very useful either.

The objects of matter exist as gaekron in various time and phase amplitudes according to quantum mechanics. More than one possible realization of an object in very different Cartesian locations may emerge from its matter spectrum. All of these possible futures for an object in time do exist with very different phases and while it seems to our Cartesian logic that action has only local causes, it is rather the case that quantum logic determines causality as the evolution of a matter spectrum.

We imagine ourselves in a frame of reference at rest and further imagine light from a source traveling away from us at the speed of light. If instead we imagine that light source creating stationary photons and moving away, it would rather be us and our comoving frame traveling away from the particular photons that we have emitted given the collapse of that world line.

Certainly it is much simpler to imagine with our Cartesian logic that incoherent photons emit and move in all directions away from a stationary source. But the universe collapses in all directions and from all points into itself and it is the rate of that collapse that determines all force.

Phase is a dimension of matter time that is very common for light but not otherwise explicitly incorporated into the everyday reality of other objects. We are made up of matter that has amplitude as well as phase but sensation is the result of the norm of matter waves and does not include phase. Similar to polarized light, the polarization of matter can contribute to a confusion of causation, but only in very controlled experiments. Polarizing a single light photon along one axis at 0° means that that photon will not pass through an analyzer oriented at 90° and these two devices will not transmit the polarized photon. However, inserting third polarizer at 45° in between the polarizer and analyzer allows that single photon to now pass 50% of the time because the 45° analyzer creates two possible polarization states from that one polarized photon.

Thus even though we imagine a single polarized photon along one axis, a single photon always exists in a superposition of two polarization states. A linearly polarized photon is really a superposition of right and left circularly polarizations even while a right circularly polarized photon is a superposition of linearly polarizations phase shifted by ¼ of a wavelength. In fact, a single photon actually has in general an elliptical polarization because the two possible polarizations can be related to each other by an arbitrary phase angle.

The third polarizer inserted at 45° distributed that single photon polarization between the two orthogonal Cartesian directions, not just one. The phase coherence of a single photon between two Cartesian axes is straightforward to calculate, but difficult to imagine. We want a photon to be polarized in only one way, but then we find out that that one photon always exists as a superposition of two circularly polarized states at different phase angles, one of which we observe as a linear polarization.

Ancient people drew pictures of the realities they saw and those pictures seem to us rather flat images with odd perspectives. Classic Egyptian art, for example, shows people and animals without perspective and with profiles that are not what our cameras of today project. Ancient pictures showed a great variety of object projections onto flat images until the realism of painted images and camera photography in the renaissance. We take for granted the camera-like projections of objects onto flat surfaces, but those projections are actually not what we sense. The imagery of our art tracks the evolution of our civilization and of consciousness itself.

Surrealist and impressionist artists have shown over the last one hundred years or so how we can perceive objects in many ways that contrast with a camera image. Artists often produce images that are manifestations of a projective Cartesian reality. In fact, such art often shows a combination of the two different representations for reality, Cartesian and relational, and we use both of these representations to predict action. Whether we project an object as a Cartesian camera flat image or we project the relations between objects onto a flat image as a relational representation, both projections represent objects for us.

A relational camera would take a very different snapshot of reality. Instead of recording the light intensity projected as an image on a flat surface, a relational spectrum would record the interaction or relational intensities among the objects of a scene onto the same surface. A relational spectrum shows interactions and therefore also shows the many possible futures of objects in a scene as opposed to their static Cartesian projections of that captured moment. That is, the strength of all of the charge and gravitational bonds would mean that matter objects would look like x-ray images, but with gravitational bonding at 1e39th less intensity than charge bonding.

Cartesian projections tend to be image frames that capture a moment of a time-like representation of a scene and so that is why our projection of space is time-like. Relational spectra, on the other hand, tend to be matter-like and action-like and capture the matter relations among objects. A relational spectrum shows the way an object interacts with other objects at a moment, but does not capture the Cartesian distances among objects very well.

If two people have a relationship, that relationship is a bond that represents a peak in each of their relational spectra just as the gravity that bonds each of them to earth as well as all of the charge bonds are also peaks. Just as charge bonds the charges of atoms, molecules, proteins, and lipids of their body’s cells together, the neural bonds of consciousness hold their realities together; their relationships with all the objects around them are also peaks in their relational spectra.

We tell word stories about the relationships that we have with each other and with other objects and these word stories are more like a relational spectrum than just a Cartesian image. As opposed to a photograph of moment, a word story describes the relational spectrum that complements that moment of a Cartesian representation of object time relationships.

Deflection of Starlight by the Sun

The first verification of Einstein’s relativity came with the observation by Eddington during an eclipse in 1919 of starlight deflection passing close to the sun. Einstein had predicted in 1915 that the sun's gravity would deflect star light, but it actually took many more years to really put this issue to bed. This is because there are two separate but equal terms for that deflection and it even took Einstein time to realize that this was so.

The first term is due to the mass-energy equivalence (MEE) of photon energy and is really then just the Newton deviation of classical gravity of an object trajectory close to a massive body is shown in Fig. 1 and is based on just gravity and mass equivalent momentum. In other words, there is both a classical Newtonian deflection of star light as well as relativity's deflection of light by gravity. The real question is why relativity predicts twice the deflection as predicted based solely on Newton's gravity, but including the mass equivalent energy of light.

And of course, since the energy of a photon is equivalent to a rest mass, this is the Newton deviation for a photon particle as mass or momentum as well. These units are all in radians, Eqs. 1 and 2, where 2π radians equals 360°, [1], [2].

For relativity, though, there is an additional deflection due to the gravity time delay and spatial distortion and a progressive gravitational redshift of light. That is, the deflection of light due to an extra gravity time delay exactly doubles the deflection due to gravity as MEE, Eq. 3.

The fact that these two effects, gravity MEE and time delay, are equivalent but distinct was not immediately apparent to Einstein and others in 1915, but eventually Einstein recognized that his relativistic deflection was indeed twice the Newton gravity deflection for light in a vacuum. So the total deflection is the sum of both Newton and redshift contributions as Eq. 4:

The original Eddington results from 1919 showed a deflection of the starlight by the sun, but those results had a fairly large uncertainty as shown in Fig. 2 and so really did not validate Einstein's Eq. 4 over Newton's Eq. 2. Since then, many different kinds of measurements have indeed verified the extra gravity deflection of light predicted by Einstein. Figure 2 shows starlight deflection data from the 1976 eclipse along with the Einstein and Newton predictions along with the range of data from Eddington in 1919. Although there is substantial scatter in the measured deflections, this paper confirmed Einstein’s prediction over Newton's with a 95% CI.

The much more precise time delays of quasar sources across the sky by VLBI radiotelescopes measures time delays between stations across the width of the earth, ~6,000 miles, to derive the same light deflection for these radiowave quasars. A more generic expression that is valid for objects across the entire sky is Eq. 5 as

where the angle, theta, is the elongation angle between the sun and the source and g = 1 for GR and g = 0 for Newton.

Travel through a gravity gradient in effect delays both photons of light as well as bodies of matter and from the precise measurement of that time delay emerges the deflection of light in space. The measurement of starlight deflections during a 1976 solar eclipse shows a dataset that is consistent with Einstein gamma = 1 and not just Newton gamma = 0. However, the scatter in the starlight deflection data in Fig. 2 shows how difficult this measurement really is.

Figure 2 also shows the three of the five much more precise VLBI results reported in a 2015 paper for a series of VLBI measurements of quasar time delays from 1991-2001 that also followed the expectations of Einstein’s relativity and gamma = 2. Unlike the measurements that depend on an eclipse, measured VLBI time delays occur throughout the year and over ten years and showed circular paths for each of five different quasar radio source deflections. One example is the blazar 1606+106 deflections in Figs. 3 and 4.

This data revealed very precise measurements of the deflection of quasar radio signals over the course of ten years for quasars that were located at the minimum angle 30.9° from the sun, a much greater elongation angle than any previous report. Once again, these datasets support the deflection predicted by Einstein’s relativity and gamma = 1 over that of the mass-energy equivalence of light and gamma = 0.

Instead of measuring starlight deflection only during an eclipse, the VLBI measures radio source deflection over an entire year for all of ten years. Each quasar radio source reveals a circular pattern that shows the same deflection observed with the eclipse datasets. Figures 3 and 4 show the deflections of blazar 1606+106 that is located 31° or 124 solar radii from the ecliptic and would be the elongation at the maximum deflection.

The much more precise VLBI data is also consistent with the nature of relativity to an extent that seems quite convincing. However, there are still other explanations besides Einstein’s relativity for the deflections of starlight and radio sources that are fully consistent with these measurements. These results all derive from approximations that use only the leading terms of various series expansions to simplify the complex tensor algebra of the relativistic equations. As a result, these same approximations are actually valid for any number of alternative scenarios as long as they all incorporate the same basic principle of mass-energy equivalence (MEE), i.e., E = mc². 

There are some big flaws in Einstein’s general relativity, but starlight deflection by gravity is not one of them. In fact, far from validating GR, starlight deflection is consistent with any number of other theories as long as those theories incorporate gravity MEE and therefore time delay. For example, MEE is a founding principle of discrete aether and so star light deflection by the sun is not so much of a verification of GR as it is of gravity MEE and time delay.

A spherical gradient index lens, for example, deflects starlight in the same way as a gravity body like the sun. For a gravity lens, the starlight first redshifts in its approach and then blueshifts as it leaves the gravity field deflected as shown in Figs. 1 and 5. Similarly, for a gradient index lens, the starlight redshifts and delays as it travels the index gradient and then starlight blueshifts as leaves the index gradient. Similarly, a body of mass accelerates and gains energy upon entering a gravity gradient, then decelerates and loses energy and is also delayed upon traveling the same gravity gradient, but only one-half as much delay as the starlight.

The dielectric effect delays light that travels through a dielectric medium since light slows down in a medium with an index of refraction greater than vacuum. In a fully consistent manner, a gravity field slows light and therefore results in the same index gradient, which is an alternative explanation from relativity. Whereas Einstein supposed a distorted 4D spacetime where light followed geodesic paths (shown in Fig. 5), light does not change velocity along that spacetime geodesic. Instead, a gravity field dilates time and space by the same Lorentz factor in a gravity field, which maintains a constant speed of light in the moving frame.

In the moving frame, there is no change in the speed of light because both distance and time are dilated by the same MEE factor and so in GR, there is no way for the traveler to know about their motion without communication with the rest frame. However, in the rest frame, the deflection and delay of light in the moving frame is very apparent. The apparent speed of light for the photon does in fact slow down since there is a time delay just as there is a time delay for the matter body as well.

A positive gradient quadrupole gravity wave, shown in Fig. 5, is due to the exchange of image dipoles with the photon dipole and this is a dielectric effect. In effect, the photon travels through the gravity quadrupole field and that same quadrupole gravity field exchanges dipole pairs between the two matter object. It is the exchange of quadrupole photons that results in an increase in that object’s inertial mass and velocity.

A quadrupole gravity exchange with a photon of light results in an apparent red shift or mass loss followed by blue shift and mass gain and an overall photon delay even while the same quadrupole gravity exchange with a matter object first increases the decreases object mass and ends up with only one half of the time delay that a photon experiences.

A photon in a dielectric gradient generates an image dipole that results in an attractive force and a red shift of its frequency. In effect, the quadrupole gravity field derives from photon emissions of matter particles that end up folding back onto the particles with the folding time of the universe. The time quadrupole operator, Fig. 6, is the basic scaling for gravity force from dipole time operator of charge force.

Quadrupole photon gravity is a quantum gravity and is a part of matter time, where all force derives from the same fundamental decay of the universe. Photon delay in a gravity field is twice the delay of an MEE matter object due to the fact that a photon undergoes an additional dielectric delay that is equivalent to its MEE delay.

It is from these time delays that our notion of space emerges from the action of matter. Therefore, the fundamental flaw in Einstein's GR is that a deterministic geodesic path like Fig. 5 exists. Although this is an excellent approximation, that path in a quantum gravity actually emerges from the exchange of biphotons. Similar to the exchange of virtual photon dipoles that represents the basic nature of quantum charge, it is the exchange of virtual biphoton quadrupoles that represents the basic nature of quantum gravity.

The factor of two for relativity's delay of light is actually the same factor of two that shows up in the gyromagnetic precession frequency between relativity and classical frequencies of rotating charge. This means that the g-factor that relates quantum to classical charge is the same g-factor that relates quantum and classical gravity, finally resolve the discrepancies between gravity and charge.

References
Eddington, Arthur Stanley (1919). “The Total Eclipse of 1919 May 29 and the Influence of Gravitation on Light.” The Observatory 42, 119-122.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0709/0709.0685.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1976AJ.....81..455J

http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.07395

ftp://ftp.ga.gov.au/geodesy-outgoing/vlbi/Presentation.pptx

Aethertime Cosmology

Instead of a big bang, the discrete matter and action universe decoheres from its precursor antiverse expansion and the decoherence rate is what drives both charge and gravity forces in the shrinking or collapsing epoch of decoherence. The current decoherence rate is 0.255 ppb/yr, which is about 9.6% per Byr matter decay and force growth and means that the current universe is only about 81% of the mass of when decoherence began at creation but the speed of light at creation was zero. The ratio of the time size of the universe to the time size of the hydrogen atom represents the ratio of charge to gravity forces and force also evolves along with universe decoherence.

Instead of the Hubble constant deriving universe expansion from galaxy red shifts, the red shifts of the Hubble constant just define the size of the universe given the speed of light in this epoch. Equivalently, Hubble is just the product of the current rate of the universe decoherence and the current speed of light, H = α_dot c. The aethertime Hubble constant is then purely a classical constant and simply depends on constants that are the ratio of gravity and charge forces, H = m_H²G / (q² r_B 1e-7). This means that the size of the universe scales from the size the hydrogen atom and the ratio of gravity and charge forces.

And what do you know...the universe is shrinking...universe is slowly dying reported at 50% over 2 Byr. The paper Galaxy and Mass Assembly...at Low z shows a decay of three times,  {2.25, 1.50, 0.75} Byrs as {2.5, 2.25, 1.5} e35 W/Mpc³ at h₇₀. Since the current universe is about 0.32e35 W/Mpc³, which is the Virgo cluster luminosity over its 0.11 Blyr time size.

So the very latest decoherence would show the accelerating collapse of 6.3e35 W/Mpc³/Byr, not just 0.63e35, which is 50% over 2 Byrs. The dephasing of discrete aether shows this decoherence is actually due to universe shrinkage and not expansion, but the time delays are not the same between expanding and shrinking universes. It is fun to suppose that this measure of universe decay is consistent with an aether decoherence that drives all force. The universe actually decoheres at -9.6%/Byr, but the universe decoherence presumes a constant c, which doubles the apparent matter decay to -19%/Byr.

In Defense of Time

There is a very strong ongoing discourse about the nature of time and whole books have been written about the illusion of time, both for time as an illusion [The Illusion of Time, Tolle 2008, The Time Illusion, Wright 2012, A Question of Time: The Ultimate Paradox, Sci.Amer. 2012, The Elegant Universe, Greene 2010] and against time as an illusion [Time Reborn, Smolin 2012, What Makes Time Special?, Callender, 2017].

Although there is an illusion about reality, that illusion is not about time. The illusion that we have about reality is in how we discover continuous space and motion, not in the discrete time delays of objects and action. We first discover space as the lonely dark empty nothing that explains why we no longer see an object that has moved behind another object. We learn about space by about the age of two and then we take space and motion for granted as a basic belief that anchors consciousness. We do not really often dwell on the irony of accepting the nothingness of empty space as a something that makes up most of the universe. We simply realize that objects continue to exist even when we do not sense them and the motion of objects in that nothing of empty space simply hides one object behind other objects.

While there  are many, many more books and articles written about the illusion of space than the illusion of time, somehow we just don't get it. The vast majority of spatial illusions result from a confusion that we have with the time delays that we sense for objects and their backgrounds, what we call spatial depth dimension in an otherwise two-dimensional image. We know that with each of our two eyes we only perceive a two dimensional reality of object time delays and therefore the third dimension emerges as depth only by perspective. Each of our two eyes sees a slightly different two dimensional space from just the one dimension of time delay between objects.

Our brain largely organizes the world with the dual concepts of continuous space and motion and uses space and motion to keep track of where objects are and to help predict where objects are going. We imagine ourselves in a rest frame that does is not moving and that a reality exists for both moving objects outside of our brain and objects at rest with us in space. We seem to have a no trouble imagining space as a lonely empty nothing and it is especially ironic that we infer space from the continuum of sensation of a background of objects and the nothing of space emerges from what we do not see or sense. The object that we imagine as empty space is everywhere the same and in some sense immobile and fixed and it is the lack of sensation of any object that we feel is the lonely empty nothing of space that then defines most of the universe that we imagine.

But continuous space and time do not describe all objects in the universe for mainstream science. There are objects called black holes and very small objects at the Planck dimension and neither of these two objects exist in continuous space and time. These objects do exist in the reality of time delay and discrete matter and the Mollweide projection maps the two-dimensional sphere of the sky into the ellipse shown below. Likewise, we can map the two dimensions of time onto a Mollweide ellipse and show how the universe projects back onto itself in time.

There are always two different observers for every motion or action; one observer, called the rest frame, is not moving and is usually left behind as a result of motion of a second observer that is moving with some action in the moving frame. In general relativity, GR, each of the rest and moving frames have their own clocks and those different clocks keep different time but still provide a single objective and proper time that completely defines that action. Proper time represents the norm of the displacement of a moving object, i.e. what we really experience, in the four dimensional spacetime of GR.

Relativity imagines a proper time that is a continuous spatial dimension and in effect does away with time by making it just a fourth dimension of 4D spacetime. The motion of an object in spacetime is equivalent to time, but then there are motions within that object that must also be equivalent to time, and further motions within those motions as well that also affect time. These recursions of embedded motions and times are an integral part of the recursion of relativity but quantum mechanics handles embedded time somewhat differently than GR.

Quantum action always begins with a discrete excitation from a ground state of one matter wave as a source or origin. That source bonds a pair of emanating matter waves of two objects into coherent relative futures. The excitation evolves a ground state into an excited state that is a pair of complementary and coherent matter waves, each with complementary and coherent clocks and directions. In classical ballistics, every action results in a reaction or recoil and a bullet firing results in a recoil of the gun in the opposite direction. Likewise in quantum action, every excitation has two coherent matter wave complements as well.

In GR, the rest and moving frame clocks represent a proper time, the time that we experience as the present moment, and the clock amplitudes and phases of the two frames do not affect the path of the object and essentially remain coherent for all time. In quantum action,  the rest and moving frame clocks begin together and are coherent for only some characteristic time. As long as two clocks remain coherent, they may interfere with each other and therefore affect each other's path. The quantum rest and moving clocks come into existence after some excitation of one or two sources and quantum clocks merge with discrete jumps or quanta into the same proper time norm that GR reports.

We therefore experience the same proper time in both quantum and GR times, and we sense the same matter changes of an object and the same motions emerge along with space as a result of sensation. However, there is an inherent decoherence rate for the two quantum clocks of a rest and moving frame that not only limits what we can know about their paths, that decoherence rate is what determines both gravity and charge forces.

What we sense about an object involves exchanges of matter amplitude and phase with the object matter waves and those matter and phase exchanges result in a complex neural packet of aware matter that we call a moment of thought. From all of these complex relations among impulses, the relative simplicity of objects at a particular moment emerges as the three dimensions of space in our brain.

What we actually sense about an object is, however, quite a complex set of both coherent and incoherent matter waves that represents a relational reality that comprises both us and the object. While what we imagine about an object represents a very much simpler Cartesian reality of time and objects in a mostly empty space, the relational reality of an object is ever so much more complex. This fundamental dualism is a prominent feature of all models of reality and yet matter time necessarily uses time and matter as primal conjugates and not the space and momentum of mainstream science. Since we do not actually sense the nothing of space and motion, we can deduce and can and do imagine the nothing of space to be just about anything that space needs to be.

The fact that there are two distinct clocks for each GR action, a rest clock and a moving clock, is also true for quantum action. However, a quantum action begins in the past with either one or two sources of matter waves that may or may not be coherent. Quantum clocks can be entangled and interfere with each other, which just means that the excited state of a source matter wave pair can remain coherent for a very long time and so can result in correlated and seemingly nonlocal actions. This seeming violation of GR's local causal principle of determinism is simply a characteristic of a quantum time and does not actually violate any quantum causal principle.

After all, while quantum clocks show interference effects as long as they are coherent, GR clocks are in a sense always coherent and phase has no meaning. Since the two clocks of GR do not interfere with each other as coherent amplitude and phase, the rest and moving clocks of GR merge smoothly into the proper time norm of experience. There is no role for the phase of coherent clocks in GR and so there are no interference effects in GR either.

In contrast to the importance of clock time in GR, time as an independent dimension seems to go away in the four-space of GR since there is no phase and no decoherence rate. There is only one possible future in GR and so GR time has no phase and is simply a dimension of displacement that is equivalent to space. Yet quantum atomic time is not only a progress variable, quantum decoherence time is also an integral part of reality and as a result, there is no quantum time operator like there is a quantum mass operator. Even though time is a prominent feature of general relativity and the mass-energy equivalence principle, E = mc², quantum's adoption of mass-energy equivalence still means there is no expectation value for quantum time. While momentum and space have long had a warm and cozy quantum relationship as conjugates and are nicely complementary, mass and time are not quantum complements of each other like momentum and space for mainstream science.

Since there is not an expectation value for time or duration, this is known as the quantum time problem and this is what leads many to suggest that quantum time is an illusion. These arguments rest on the proposition that there is quantum space and motion as our reality, but not matter and time. Quantum energy simply exists like time as a progress variable and is always a result of motion, not the source of motion.

However, matter time plays a role reversal and proffers that instead of space and motion being the reality and time a consequence of motion, quantum matter and time are the reality and space and motion emerge as a mere consequence of the action of matter and time. Space is then just a convenient progress variable and the illusion of space is what allows us to keep track of objects in time. It is matter and time that complement each other and not momentum and space. Key in matter time is the matter-energy equivalence principle (MEE) and Lorentz invariance and the rigor of certain bounding assumptions for matter. For matter and time to complement each other, the universe must be of a finite total mass that is finitely divisible and these two assumptions become the basis for a quantum time operator that complements the quantum matter operator.

Time becomes the duration of an action and an integration of changes in an object matter spectrum. Just as action is the integration of an object's changes in matter over time, action is also the integration of an object's changes in the time amplitudes of its matter spectrum. An object's changes in matter over time define the object in the present moment, which is within the time spectrum of the universe. Likewise, an object's changes in time amplitudes as a function of matter define an object's matter spectrum that is embedded within the matter spectrum of the boson universe.

Pulsar Spin Down

Pulsars are the wonderful gifts or time and are the clocks of our galaxy and really of our universe. Many stars just like our sun reach their destinys as rotating pulsars, white dwarfs, and neutron stars. These rotating bodies show us the way of our destiny as well as the way of our past.

Pulsar rotation is highly periodic, but because they are every dense, pulsars have very unusual properties as well much like the property of spin of the atomic nucleus. In contrast to the nuclear spin, pulsars radiate energy from their poles and it is the precession of those energy beacons that shines much like the rotating lighthouse of maritime lore. Each time a pulsar pole happens to point to earth, we measure a pulse of that pulsar and these pulses vary from periods of several seconds to several thousandths of a second, milliseconds.

The pulsars not only tick at very regular rates, pulsars also decay at very regular rates. Some pulsars actually increase in tick rate, but the vast majority of pulsar rates decay over time. This decay rate conforms to the classical α_dot = 0.255 ppb/yr decay of matter time as shown by the red dash line in the figures below. This classical decay is proportional to the ratio of gravity and the square of charge and so is the unification of gravity and charge in matter time.

Millisecond pulsars are especially accurate timepieces and their trend in the plots below show an average decay that is very similar to the classical decay, and while this could be just a coincidence, it it perfectly consistent with a shrinking universe. Also maybe coincidentally, the measured earth spin down, earth moon orbit decay, and Milky way/Andromeda separation rates happen to fall on this same line...

The larger plot below shows where the hydrogen atom and electron spin frequencies lie on the spin down line...oh, and the earth-moon orbital decay is also well known. Note that orbital decay means frequency decay and that means the orbit increases in distance in order for the period to decrease. The classical electron spin velocity, c/α, defines a period for the electron spin and the matter decay, m_dot, defines the slope of the decay line. These are the two axioms that drive all gravity and charge forces.

As you can see, both c/α and m_dot are simply restatements of constants of science and not new parameters. The only new parameter here is that third axiom, m_¥, the mass of the smallest particle, the gaechron. The ratio m_¥ / m_e scales gravity to charge force, but does not show up on this plot since that is the period of the universe matter pulse, 27 Byr, of which we are 3.4 Byr into that matter pulse. However, the Andromeda-Milky Way galaxies separation decays at 0.267 ppb/yr, very close to the universe decay rate.

Now added is the Allan deviation noise curves for the 171Yb/87Sr lattice clock ratio. Once the ratio noise is coincident with the universal decay constant, that is to what the clock ratio converges.

Quasar Numbers and Luminosities

This plot shows 46,000 some odd quasars from the SDSS J dataset in terms of numbers per 250 Myrs as well as luminosity in terms of equivalent sun masses turned into energy. Note that while the quasar number densities peak at 10.25 Byrs, the luminosity keeps going up to one sun mass equivalent energy per year. The time scale assumes a Hubble constant H = 74 km/s/Mpc.

And of course, the matter time universe scales differently and below is the matter time equivalent plot. The matter time universe is 3.4 Byrs proper time and quasar luminosity scales much differently in an expanding force and decaying matter universe as opposed to the space and time expansion of the big bang (actually just by1/gamma^2). 

Thus the luminosity of quasars in the early epoch now is very similar to  galaxy luminosity in the current epoch, which is due to starlight and not the SMBH. The H = -288 km/s/Mpc, and of course, the Hubble constant is negative for decay and begins at the edge of the universe shrinking inward, just like one might expect for a gravitational universe.

There is also some great work with the number density and luminosities of all galaxies, Nature 469 504–507 (27 January 2011) doi:10.1038/nature09717. Here is a plot of luminosity of all galaxies as well as quasars as a function of Hubble time for the space time expanding universe.

and here is the corresponding plot for the matter time collapsing universe.

Runiverse = 2401 Mpc, 201 billion galaxies at 3.5 Mpc-3. The luminosity uv is the SDSS uv band while sfr is the star forming rate derived from cited models along with the constant galaxy density of 3.5 Mpc-3 shown below. Since there are 54 galaxies in our local group and diameter of 3.1 Mpc, there is 3.5 galaxies per Mpc3. 

Here is a plot of the local galaxy number density from PASJ: Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 55, 757-770, 2003 August 25, http://pasj.asj.or.jp/v55/n4/550406/node4.html. There are 500,000 galaxies within z=2 in SDSS-10.

Here is the plot that shows it all. The galaxy number density is constant at 3.5 Mpc-3, but in a collapsing universe, the space-time metric evolves and the galaxy number density versus time is more like a quadratic function.

It appears that quasar number densities are on the order of 0.47% of galaxy numbers in a collapsing universe. This result is really crazy. What it means is that time lensing of the past affects how we interpret our universe.

The idea of a quasar as a composite of a boson star and an eternally collapsing object is very appealing. In this case, the event horizon represents a phase transition between a time-like fermionic matter, i.e. the ordinary matter of our universe, and the boson matter-like time of a boson star. Matter time does seem to provide a coupling between the fermions of a rotating accretion disk and the bosons of a rotating boson star.

This entity will accrete fermions into the event horizon, undergo phase transition to bosons and emit the balance of the fermions as light at the jets of the quasar.

It is very likely that thermodynamics will provide a useful way to handle this phase transition from two such different states of matter. In fact, there may be something quite similar going on at the centers of large neutron stars.