[time 542] Re: [time 541] Re: [time 529] Discussion shift

Stephen P. King (stephenk1@home.com)
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 23:15:57 -0400

Hi Bill,

        I am reading Dr. Marmet's on-line book, interesting. He uses a
mechanical paradigm that I often dislike, but I like the way his mind

WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/12/99 11:06:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> stephenk1@home.com writes:
> > I would like to shift the discussion to other issues for a while.
> > Perhaps we could examine Bill's infinite products and its implications.
> Stephen and other people,
> Thanks for the request. Let's first get some groundrules.
> 1) I am not the average Many-Worlds believer. I do not adhere to the MWs
> conclusion that copies exist, in MWs, of people, animals, interferometers or
> any other macroscopic object. What I speculate on is the possibility that
> signals
> are copied into MWs; ie, matter reveals itself as photons in other worlds and
> photons in our world reveal matter in other worlds.

        Umm, are you familiar with the supersymmetry transformation that
involves the transformation of bosons (such as photons) into fermions
(such as electrons, protons, etc.) and vise versa. I have always
wondered why such a beautiful symmetry is not experimentally obvious.
Maybe because we are looking too hard for it! :-) In my thinking the
Universe objects are composed of quantum systems (no "ultimate
indivisible particles") to for local systems, these quantum systems
would, if we suppose that the "Super Poincare" symmetry is real, have
both "matter" and "photon" properties. Now, what if we fail to see the
multitude of particles that the usual interpretation of supersymmetry
generates for the same reason that we do not see the other worlds?
> 2) I do not follow the argument that time is a dimension since my analysis
> depends on the Lorentz factor, (1/(1 - v^2/c^2)), being due entirely to the
> distribution of the reflection of signals we receive from other worlds due our
> presence in this world. Therefore I do not think of Many-Space-Time-Worlds,
> but speculate instead on Many-Classical-Worlds where high energy
> interactions reveal copies of signals, but do not indicate a 4th imaginary
> dimension.

        I think that both Hitoshi and I agree with the first notion, time is
not a dimension; it is a subjective measure of change. Your idea of
"Many-Classical-Worlds" is consistent with Local System theory, since
each Local Systems (LS) perceives all other LSs as classical particles
whose apparent behavior follows classical notions. But, the caveat is
that there is a classical world for every LS, as its object of
        As I write this, I see that I am sketchy and I am talking about ideas
that might be non-intuitive to you, as your infinite products are to me;
but I firmly believe that we can figure this out. :-)
> 3) Therefore I closely follow the work of Dr. Paul Marmet of the University
> of
> Ottawa's Physics Department. Dr. Marmet's homepage is:
> http://www.physics.uottawa.ca/profs/marmet/
> Dr. Marmet derives the Lorentz factor from the principle of conservation of
> mass/energy of atoms, and basic rules of Quantum Mechanics. This
> ability is really astonishing since it is at least a partial unification of
> Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, a result possible only after putting
> time where it belongs. Please take a look at Dr. Marmet's work. I am
> respectfully sending this note to Dr. Marmet as well as to the TIME group
> in the hope that he will partake (he does not need MWs, but I do need his
> work).

        This is very interesting. It will take me a few days to digest it all.
I think it would be great if Dr. Marmet adds his wisdom to the Time
Group! :-)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:29 JST