a reply to: Dineutron
Thanks for commenting. I looked into the papers you referenced. What follows below is similar to what I would write if I were reviewing, except I've
been more liberal with my own opinions since this is a forum and not a review. (I reviewed works on relativity for a couple of decades.)
The Four Space-times Model of Reality:
1) Fontana states "baryon matter (consisting of strongly interacting fermions like protons, electrons and neutrons)". Perhaps this is a typo, but
electrons are not baryons, nor do they interact strongly. Such a statement will distract readers into thinking the author may be a novice.
2) Fontana brings in multiple, overlapping coordinate systems and asserts we live within just one of them. It is certainly fine to propose anything at
all. However it is my view that we live in a universe with three spatial dimensions measurable with meter sticks, and that time is the quantity that
orders events and it is measurable with clocks. To me, space and time are very different things. It is my view that ideas such as unified space-time,
curvature of that space-time, and even more so, multiple additional dimensions, are simply mathematical fantasies that are thrown in to explain things
that so far (prior to my work) have not been explained with a far simpler space and time underpinning.
This is not to say that it is impossible that there are other dimensions. Indeed, a popular pastime over the past century has been to add as many free
parameters into our theories as needed in order to achieve a mathematical map to experiments. This can be useful, but it likely lacks an appreciation
for what actually exists. Whether we add the free parameters through the many terms and fitted constants of the standard model, or if we do so by
adding multiple dimensions, we can map to experimental results, but it is my belief that a proper understanding of nature will result in far fewer
required fundamental constructs to base our physics on. (And I prefer a physical model to a mathematical one.)
3) "It is due to Special Relativity that the difference originates between space and time." No, I would say most ten year olds are aware of the
difference between space and time, and probably have been since antiquity. Instead, it was relativity that began to blur the distinction between space
4) "Special Relativity (SR) has been developed to mathematically describe the observation that the speed of light is the same for all observers. This
fact led to the dismissal of Galilean transformations in favour of the Lorentz transformation." The first sentence is acceptable; the second sentence
has problems. The Lorentz transformation was developed by Lorentz and others prior to the advent of SR.
5) "It became obvious that space and time were both part of a single entity named space-time". Obvious? To whom? Maybe mathematicians, but I believe
it is rather universally obvious (outside of sparsely populated academic circles) that space and time are two separate things.
6) "SR predicted the relevant properties of time dilatation and mass increase." Time dilation yes, but there is no mass increase. Both Einstein and
Lorentz made this same error in their papers, calling out a transverse mass of gamma*m and a longitudinal mass of m*gamma^3. But then we don't have
one mass anymore. A better interpretation is that mass is just the "rest mass" m0 and that F = dp/dt, where p = gamma*m0*v. In such a formulation you
will pick up kinematic factors of gamma, but you can stick to a single mass m0.
7) "tau being a measure of the distance, named proper time.". Well, tau is only a proper time if the four-vector is time-like. If the four-vector is
space-like, then tau would be a proper length. This seventh point has ramifications for what follows in the paper.
In my earlier years of reviewing I would have slowly worked through the rest of the paper, but in later years I realized that with so many rather
significant issues I should just pass the initial comments back to the author for more work. In many cases the author would start anew, because the
author would agree that there were shortcomings in the original approach and he or she would thank me and we'd move on to a substantially new draft.
On other occasions the author would write back berating me as a simpleton that was not able to understand the brilliance of their work. In ALL cases,
I would keep an open mind and the author could either correct what they agreed were errors, or, explain better why they weren't errors (in their
opinion) in the next draft. Either way, this would strengthen the work, and we could move on to review the next draft. And I would almost always
encourage next drafts, as sometimes the authors may have had a germ of a good idea, despite the obvious flaws. In any event, that is enough for the
Fontana paper "The Four Space-times Model of Reality" for now. I skimmed a bit further, and it seems to have more problems along the lines of what
I've already mentioned. It certainly is far from my view of what space and time are. (Of course I am willing to consider other viewpoints, but as
already mentioned I don't think they are very helpful.)
I tried downloading the second paper you mention, and see it is also by Fontana, but this time my browser warned me it should not be downloaded as it
might have content that would damage my computer.