The Progression of Time

New ideas in physics

(Translation of the Russian monograph)
C Johan Masreliez
Foreword by Igor Taganov
Starting my work on this Preface, I had not planned to undertake a detailed critical analysis of
Carl Johan Masreliezs ideas or summarize his achievements, thereby depriving readers of the
pleasure to learn the original ideas of the book in the authors presentation. I considered it
expedient in the short historical overview to acquaint the reader with some physical ideas that
having a direct relation to the theme of the book and significantly influencing the development of
theoretical physics, for one reason or another were not represented in details in the popular
textbooks and monographs.
The problem of progression and possible discreteness of time has for a long time been a source
for lively discussions of scientists and philosophers. As a monument to these disputes, there are
the well-known paradoxes of Parmenidess disciple the philosopher Zeno of Elea (c. 490c. 430
BCE) On the competition in the race between Achilles and the tortoise and On the
impossibility of arrow flight. Original tractates by Zeno of Elea had not been found, but the
stories collected by Diogenes Laertius in 3 century, and Zenos ideas as presented by Aristotle,
give reason to suppose that Zeno wrote his paradoxes during ancient discussions about the
existence of the atoms of time, that is, discussing the heuristic models of discrete time.
Medieval philosopher Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides; 11351204) witnesses in his
The Guide for the Perplexed about discussions of Arab philosophers Mutakallims about the
causes of the progression of time and atoms of time1.
French medieval philosopher Nikolai Otrekure (c. 1299c. 1369) deserved honor of the public
burning of his books at the order of Pope Clement VI because of their innovative ideas. The
philosopher, in particular, argued that matter, space and time are made of the indivisible atoms,
points and moments, and all the processes of synthesis and degradation of matter occur through
the rearrangements of atoms. Explanation of motion of bodies at different speeds philosopher
saw in the variable progression of time and existence of microscopic breaks (morulae) in each
movements continuity.
Aristotle, who did not share concepts of atomism, was also critical to the ideas of the indivisible
atoms of time and variable progression of time, which, in his opinion, leads to a paradoxical
1

Maimonides M. The Guide for the Perplexed. NY, 1946.

situation where the movement will consist not of movements but of the instant displacements of
something motionless2.
Aristotle saw the best way to overcome the Zenos paradoxes in the approval of continuity of
movement and steady progression of time. Speaking of continuity and infinite divisibility of
motion he essentially attributed these properties to the space and time. The authority of Aristotle
for many centuries turned the development of physical theory of time and atomistic doctrine into
pseudoscience, which was cruelly persecuted.
French philosopher, Bishop of Lisieux, a counselor of King Charles V of France, Nicholas
Oresme (c. 1320/13251382), who taught at the Sorbonne in Paris, in the 14th century introduced
the concept of time intervals for the first time in the form of straight line segments in geometric
kinematic diagrams. However, this graphic illustration of time did not take into account the main
ontological category of time its irreversibility, which distinguishes time from space. The
mechanistic determinism of Galileo and Newton, which became the foundation of classical
physics, was based on the reversibility of the geometric representation of time introduced by
Nicholas Oresme.
The basic method of describing motion by Galileo became the use of the geometrical image of
time as a straight line, introduced by Nicholas Oresme. Newton, following Galileo mixed space
segments, velocities and geometrical time-intervals in his kinematic diagrams. He introduced the
absolute mathematical time with the image of a continuous flow in a straight line
(fluxions). Using time-intervals as an equal to space segments in the adopted reference systems
provided Newton with effectiveness and visibility of the geometrical description of the
mechanical movement.
Gradually, the geometric representation of time-intervals in the form of straight-line segments
created the image of a reversible time as an infinitely extended straight line that can be followed
and measured in both directions. The use of time as one of the coordinate in reference systems
made time a specific geometrical parameter with invariable and uniform scale an independent
variable in the equations of motion. This process of primitive geometrization of time was
concluded in the early 20th century by giving to time the physical dimension of space, as
demonstrated by intervals (line-elements) of spacetime with the physical dimension of length in
the theory of relativity.
Until the late 19th century, the use of Newtons completely reversible absolute time in
classical physics did not lead to serious contradictions with the observations. However, in the
20th century, when theoretical physics began to use the combined four-dimensional spacetime
continuum, the situation changed instead of the use of asymmetric four-dimensional continuum
2

. . 4 . ( ). .: , 19751983. (,
6.1).

with irreversible time, a symmetric spacetime with reversible absolute Newtonian time not
corresponding to the physical reality became a base of physics.
The contradictory history of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR), the Principle of Relativity
and the postulate of constancy of the speed of light is described in many books, and among them
the book3 of the prominent mathematician and philosopher Edmund Whittaker, who was a
witness and participant in many events of this history. The theory of relativity was originally
termed special, probably, by Willem de Sitter because it applied the Principle of Relativity
only to the special case of inertial reference frames frames of reference in uniform relative
motion with respect to each other.
Through almost all the 19th century it was believed that light propagates as a transverse waves
within an elastic medium called luminiferous aether. Most popular was the Stationary Ether
Theory by Augustin-Jean Fresnel, in which light propagates as a transverse wave and aether was
only partially dragged with a certain coefficient by matter. However, the famous MichelsonMorley experiments (1887) yielded a final negative result, and no motion of the Earth through
the stationary aether was detected.
A first possible explanation of Michelson-Morley experiment was proposed already in the
same 1887 by the German physicist Woldemar Voigt. He deduced coordinate transformations
that left the wave equation in free space unchanged, and preserved the speed of light in all
reference frames4. The Voigt transformations included the Lorentz factor (1 v2 c2 )1 2 and
a new time variable, which later was called local time in STR:
x x vt

y y /

z z /

t t xv / c 2 (1)

If the right-hand sides of Voigt equations are multiplied by Lorentz-factor they are the
modern Lorentz transformations of STR. The magnitude of the Voigt time dilation was greater
than the now accepted value in the STR.
The foundation of the modern STR became works of two Irish physicists George Fitzgerald
and Joseph Larmor. In 1889, in his article5, Fitzgerald suggested that the result of the MichelsonMorley experiment, revealed no movement of the Earth relative to the stationary aether, might be
explained by the reduction of the length of all objects in the direction of motion. In 1897, Joseph

Whittaker, E. A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. The Modern Theories 1900-1926,
London: Thomos Nelson, 1953.
4

Voigt, W. On the Principle of Doppler" // Gttinger Nachrichten (1887), 7; 4151. Theorie des Lichts
fr bewegte Medien // Gttinger Nachrichten (1887), 8: 177238.
5

Fitzgerald, G.F. The ether and the earths atmosphere // Science (1889) 13;390.

Larmor published the first theory6 of the Lorentz transformations two years before Hendrik
Lorentz and eight years before Albert Einstein.
The Principle of Relativity in the form of equivalence of inertial reference systems was promoted
by Henri Poincar in 1895, in two articles7, devoted to discussion of the Larmors work on
electromagnetism. In his article The Measure of Time8 (1898) Poincare already formulated the
postulate of the constancy of the speed of light, which, in his opinion, will determine the future
relativistic ideology. Poincar also discussed this idea later in his report9 to the International
Physical Congress in Paris in 1900.
In 1899, Lorentz completed work on the deduction of his famous transformations that
Poincar called the Lorentz group10. In 1900 in his book11 Ether and Matter Joseph Larmor
presented a detailed analysis of the Lorentz transformations, considering the deceleration of
electromagnetic processes in through the aether moving material systems.
The transformations, which Lorentz derived, described electromagnetic phenomena in inertial
frames of reference moving uniformly relative to a stationary aether. He believed that the
reduction of the object length in the direction of motion is real and it is explained by specific
electromagnetic interaction of moving objects with stationary aether. Following Lorentz many
leading physicist, in particular, Oliver Heaviside, Oliver Lodge, George Fitzgerald and Joseph
Larmor explained the null effect of the Michelson-Morley experiment by the real contraction of
matter during movement. Only Henri Poincar started to consider all relativistic effects as
complex system phenomena in kinematics, governed by the general Principle of Relativity.
Poincar further developed the idea of time determination based on the postulate of the
constancy of the speed of light in his 1900 article Lorentz theory and the principle of reaction12.
In this paper was firstly given a physical interpretation of used by Voigt and Lorentz local time
as the time scale, synchronized by light signals with constant speed. Poincar, in particular,
showed that to obtain the Lorentz transformations it is necessary to assume the linearity of
transformations and the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames of
reference.
6

Larmor, J. On a Dynamical Theory of the Electric and Luminiferous Medium, Part 3, Relations with material media

// Phyl. Trans. of the Royal Soc. of London (1897) 190; 205300.

7

Poincare, H. // L'Eclairage Electrique (1895) t.5, p.5.

Poincare, H. // Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale (1898) t.6, p. l.

Poincare, H. // Rapports du Congres de Physique Paris (1900), t. l, p.22.

10

Lorentz, H.A. // Zittingsverlag, Acad.Wet. (1899) v.7, s.507 Amsterdam Proc., 1898-1899, p.427.

11

Larmor, J.J. Aether and Matter. Cambridge, 1900.

12

Poincare, H. // Archives Neerland (1900) v.5, p.252.

Although not proposing any new formulae, Albert Einsteins famous article13 (1905) on the STR
firstly demonstrated that the STR could be created without the concept of stationary aether.
Einstein substituted the concept of aether by the condition of physical equivalence between all
inertial systems. This paper also firstly demonstrated what type of space and time metrology
leads to Lorentz transformations.
The scientific community accepted the Principle of Relativity in Poincare-Einstein formulation
without objection, as it was a centuries-old idea. In contrast to the Principle of Relativity, the
Poincar-Einstein postulate of the independence of the speed of light from the motion of its
source caused the objections of many physicists. Most critics of this postulate indicated that it
corresponds to the extraordinary statement:
c V c with V 0 (2)

Such a statement, according to early critics of the STR, contradicts to common sense.
However, it is more important that (2) contradicts to Archimedes lemma, which states that
given two magnitudes having a ratio, one can find a multiple of either, which will exceed the
other. Since in accordance with (2) there is no velocity that can exceed the speed of light, all
algebraic operations using the speed of light are mathematically incorrect.
Several influential physicists for example Walter Ritz (1908), Richard Tolman (1910) and Daniel
Comstock (1910) considered the possibility of abandoning the postulate of the constancy of the
speed of light and using only the Principle of Relativity, to construct a new theory that will be
consistent with the known observations.
In 1908, Nikolai Morozov, an all-round Russian scholar, voiced criticism of the Gauss-Thomson
absolute system of units LTM, which was based on the fundamental triad length L - time T mass M14. Morozov argued that science knows too little about the essence of Time to use it as a
basic unit and suggested replacing the unit of time by the standard relation for units of space and
time, which may be represented by some standard velocity (V). If the standard of mass is defined
by the Newton law of gravitation, for the Morozovs system of units LVM the following relations
hold:
dx dt V L M

(3)

13

Einstein, A. // Annalen der Physik (1905) b.17, s. 891. . . .,

, 1965, . 1, . 7.
14

. - . , 1908.

In particular, Morozov showed that in his LVM system of units many classical physics formulae
have a most simple form. Seventy five years later, Morozovs ideas were realized in the modern
interrelated meter-and-second standards based on the natural velocity standard the speed of
light.
Perhaps inspired by the book by Morozov in September 1910, at the mathematical and physical
section of the 82th meeting of German naturalists and physicians in Knigsberg the Russian
physicist Vladimir Ignatowsky in his report Some general remarks on the Principle of
Relativity15. In this report he demonstrated the creation of axiomatic STR using the following
axioms:
1. Principle of Relativity, asserting the equivalence and equality of inertial reference systems.
2. The assumption of the linear form of coordinate transformations between inertial reference
frames.
3. The assumption of space isotropy.
In axiomatic STR, the Poincare-Einstein postulate of independence of light speed from the
motion of its source is not used as the initial assumption, and the relativistic velocity addition
rule became one of results of the Ignatowskys axiomatic STR. The assertion that an object
moving at the speed of light in one reference frame, will move with the same speed in any other
frame of reference has lost the status of a postulate, becoming the proven theorem in the
axiomatic STR.
The axiomatic method of Ignatowsky was further developed in 1911 in the article16 of Philipp
Frank and Hermann Rothe. This study showed that the most general coordinate transformations
between the two inertial frames, corresponding to Principle of Relativity in the form of axiom,
asserting the equivalence and equality of inertial reference systems, are linear-fractional
functions, which can have several parameters:
x

A(v) x B(v)t
1 a(v) x b(v)t

D(v) x E (v)t
1 a(v) x b(v)t

(4)

With the same denominator these linear-fractional transformations correspond to the

transformations of projective geometry, which translate the equation of a straight line: x x0 ut
into the equation of the other straight line: x x0 ut . Application of the second axiom of
coordinate transformations linearity allows us to consider further the transformations of the form:
15

W. von Ignatowsky. Einige allgemeine Bemerkungen zum Relativittsprinzip // Verh. d. Deutsch. Phys. Ges.

(1910) 12: 788796. (see also http://synset.com).

16

Philipp Frank und Hermann Rothe. ber die Transformation der Raumzeitkoordinaten von ruhenden
auf bewegte Systeme // Ann. der Physik (1911) Ser. 4, Vol. 34, No. 5; 825855. (
http://synset.com).

x (v)[ x vt ]

t (v)[t (v) x] (5)

Axiom of space isotropy for one-dimensional motion means that the conversion:
x x; x x; v v should not change (5). The transformed relation: x (v)[ x vt ]
coincides with (5): x (v)[ x vt ] only for even functions of velocity: (v) (v) . This allows
the determination of the unknown function in (5): 1 v 2

1 2

and (v) v c2 that converts

(5) into Lorentz transformations:

x ( x vt )

t (t vx c 2 )

1 v 2

1 2

(6)

It should be noted that the Ignatovskis postulate of the space isotropy, providing a condition: if
x x , then v v , coincides with the principle of forming the Morozovs system of units (3):
v dx dt x

(7)

For anisotropic space in the transformations (6) there is another dimensionless parameter (see
e. g. .. (2012) // http://synset.com):

cv
x
( x vt )
cv

cv
2
t
(t vx c ) (8)
cv

cv

2
2
2
It may be noted that in (8):
(1 z ) and thus: t (1 z) (t vx c ) . Therefore the
cv
redshift can be, in particular, a consequence of the local space anisotropy with 0 .

The Galilean, Voigt and Lorentz transformations are special types of projective
transformations, and both the number and type of parameters included in the transformations are
determined by additional assumptions. In the case of using the absolute time assumption and,
therefore, the concept of absolute simultaneity of events, the projective transformations
become the Galilean transformations of classical mechanics. The principal axiom of the STR is
the Principle of Relativity, asserting the equality of inertial reference frames. The parameter with
dimension of velocity in transformations appears because of determination of the equivalence of
inertial reference frames. Initially, this parameter is not connected with the electromagnetic
radiation or photon flux. In claiming that this parameter is determined by a fundamental constant
the speed of light, it is necessary to use additional assumptions. If additionally, an axiom of the
space isotropy is included, the general coordinate transformations become the Lorentz
7

transformations. To take into account the anisotropy of space it is necessarily to introduce in

transformations an additional dimensionless parameter.
In the 20th century a method of axiomatic creation of the STR without the Poincare-Einstein
postulate of the constancy of the speed of light was developed. This idea was firstly introduced
in the articles of Vladimir Ignatowsky, Philipp Frank and Hermann Rothe, and was repeatedly
rediscovered and discussed (for example, Terletskii, Ya.P., 1965; Bersi, V., Gorini, V., 1969;
Lee, A.R., Kalotas, T.M. 1975; Mermin, N.D. 1986; Achin Sen 1994; Nishikawa, S. 1997).
Nowadays, many physicists believe that axiomatic formulation of SRT is most common and
mathematically correct. Detailed review of the history and the contemporary form of the
axiomatic STR may be found in the article by A.K. Guts17 and the book by S.S. Stepanov18.
The special theory of relativity for the first time showed that the time scales, while maintaining
uniformity may have different metric scales in moving relative to each other in different frames
of reference from (6) for x 0 follows: t t (v) . Further study of the properties of time
scales was performed in geometric models of gravity.
In his insightful articles19 in 1904/1905 Poincar not only showed that the Lorentz
transformations form a group and found invariants of this group. These articles also showed the
fruitfulness of the Principle of least action in four-dimensional formulation. In developing the
first relativistic scalar description of the gravitational field, Poincare was the first to introduce the
imaginary time coordinate. These ideas after several years became the base of pseudo-Euclidean
geometry of spacetime, which was developed in detail by Hermann Minkowski20. This geometry
has an interval, defined by the relation:
ds 2 c2 dt 2 dl 2

(9)

The four-dimensional geometric interpretation of the special theory of relativity, proposed by

Minkowski, was the first successful step in developing the Gttingen program for the
geometrization of physics. Most importantly the geometry of Minkowski showed that there is
no need for any special Riemanns substance to describe the relativity of mechanical motion
and the electromagnetic field, since spacetime metric itself is quite enough. The first geometric
theory of gravitation, which used the metric of curved spacetime, was proposed in 1913 by
Finnish theoretical physicist Gunnar Nordstrm21. This geometrical model of gravitation is
17

.. // (1982) 37:2(224); 3979.

18

.. (2012) // http://synset.com

19

Poincare, H. // Bull. des. Sci. Math. (1904) ser.2 v.28 p.302; The Monist of January (1905) v.15, p.l.

20

Minkowski, H. a) // Gott. Nachr. (1908) s.53 c) // Phys. Zs. (1909) v.10, s.104; b) // Math. Ann. (1910)
v.68, p.472. c) // Annalen der Physik (1915) b.47, p. 927.
21

Nordstrm, G. // Ann. Phys. (1913 a) 40; 856-878. Nordstrm, G. // Phys. Z. (1914) 15; 504-506.

Lorentz invariant, satisfies the conservation laws and correctly reduces to the Newtonian limit
for gravitation.
On November 20, 1915 the successor to Riemann at the Department of Mathematical Physics of
the University of Gttingen, David Hilbert, delivered a keynote address at a meeting of the Royal
Society of Gttingen. In his report, Hilbert informed the scientific community about the birth of
the first unified geometric theory of gravitational and electromagnetic fields22. Hilberts theory
was based on a covariant form of the Principle of least action:
S ( R 2 L) gd 4 x 0 (10)

Here R R g is the scalar curvature Ricci for spacetime; g is the metric tensor of
spacetime; L is the Lagrange density of all matter and physical fields added to gravitational field;
is some constant and gd 4 x is an element of invariant 4-volume. Variation in (10) over g
gives the equations of gravitational field:
R 1 2 g R T

8 G c4

(11)

Variation in (10) over four electrodynamical potentials in L gives the Lagrange equations for
electromagnetism. Matter in the theory of Hilbert was introduced by the energy-momentum
tensor that was based on the nonlinear electrodynamics of Gustav Mie23. Hilbert regarded his
work as a solution of the problem of geometrization of physics formulated by Riemann.
Just five days later, also in November 1915, Albert Einstein reported to the Berlin Academy of
Sciences his version of the geometric theory of gravitation24. In contrast to the grandiose project
of Hilbert, Einstein solved a more moderate task. Hilbert attempted to create a self-consistent
theory in which not only the fields but also matter would be strictly geometrical patterns. In
contrast to the theory of Hilbert Einsteins equations were not intended for any geometrical
description of the electromagnetic field or for that of the matter. To deduce the same equations
(11) Einstein used two concepts the requirement of covariance of equations and the assumption
of universal equivalence of accelerating motion and the motion in gravitational field. As was
later demonstrated by John Synge and Vladimir Fock25, the first requirement is useless for
derivation of (11) and second assumption in general case is a mistake and can be valid only

22

Hilbert, D. // Nachrichten K. Gesellschaft Wiss. Gottingen. Math.-phys. Klasse (1915) Heft 3, 395

23

Mie, G. // Ann. d. Phys. (1910) 37, 511; (1912) 39, 1; (1913) 40, 1.

24

Einstein, A. // Ann. d. Phys. (1916) 49, 769.

25

.. . .: , 1963. .. ,
. . 2-. .: , 1961.

approximately and locally. The constructive principle for derivation of (11) would be the
equivalence of gravitational and inertial masses.
It was symbolic that the two geometric theories of gravitation were born in November 1915 as
twins. And in 1918, another member of the Gttingen scientific school Hermann Weyl published
the third geometric theory of electro-gravitation26. In this theory, the parallel translation of a
vector, in contrast to Riemannian geometry, not only led to a change in direction of the vector,
but also to a change in its modulus. Weyl used this feature of his geometry to describe the
electromagnetic field, discovering the first non-Riemannian geometry with non-metricity defined
by the segmental curvature.
The next geometrical field theories followed quickly. In early 1919, Einstein received for review
an article by Theodor Kaluza, which developed a 5-dimensional geometrical field theory27.
Kaluzas article, which later became a classic work, was published in late 1921 and geometric
model of gravity by the English mathematician and philosopher Alfred Whitehead28 soon
appeared. After Weil Elie Cartan discovered the second non-Riemannian geometry with torsion
to describe the electro-gravity29 and Arthur Eddington investigated the affine field theory30.
By the early 1930s, it became clear that geometrical models of the gravitational and
electromagnetic fields could be constructed in many different ways. During the 20th century only
two classes of models were investigated out of all these possibilities, which seemed most
promising the generalization of Riemannian geometry and multi-dimensional hyperspaces.
Modern scientific reviews describe already more than 30 proposed geometrical models of
gravitations and electro-gravitation.
The vast majority of developed geometric models of gravity have specific forms corresponding
to Newtons theory of gravitation, and predict the standard physical effects, which are
generally considered as experimental confirmation of Einstein's model: secular shift of the
perihelion of Mercury; gravitational redshift in the emission spectra of massive bodies;
deflection of light rays in the gravitational field of the Sun and the time-delay of radio signals
passing near the Sun. All investigated geometric models of gravity predict that the time scale,

26

Weyl, H. // Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad. (1918) s. 465.

27

Kaluza, Th. // Sitzungsber. d. Berl. Akad. (1921) s. 966.

28

Whitehead, A.N. The Principle of Relativity with Applications to Physical Science. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1922.
29

Cartan, E. // Compt. Rend. (1922) 174, 593.

30

Eddington, A.S. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1924.

10

while maintaining uniformity, can have a different metric scale, when an observer compares the
time scales in the areas with different gravitational potential: t 1 2 c 2

1 2

t; Gm r .

What is the place of the Einsteins theory of gravitation among other developed geometric
models of the electromagnetic field and gravity? Why it is still so popular? There is no doubt that
the theory of Einstein, offers the simplest geometric model of the gravitational field consistent
with the classic Occams razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (Do not
multiply the number of entities beyond what is necessary). Einsteins theory has relatively
simple mathematical form - the curvature and the energy-momentum tensor in them are linearly
connected and moreover, the spacetime is only described by rank 2 tensors. The physical essence
of Einsteins model is clear the difference between the local and general curvatures of
spacetime is proportional to the local energy-momentum density.
Einsteins theory keeps its popularity primarily because of the following two reasons:
Firstly, Einsteins equations like Newtons second law have an open architecture the energymomentum tensor on the right side of the Einstein equations, like the force in Newton second
law, would have to be determined with the help of some other additional physical theory.
Einstein himself considered this fact as a serious defect of his theory. However this open
architecture provided a long life of the Einsteins equations, because it opened wide horizons for
the imagination of theorists, who could invent the energy-momentum tensors left uncertain. After
constructing corresponding energy-momentum tensor almost any fantasy could be transformed
into mathematical form with the help of Einstein field equations. This unusual generality of
Einsteins model was showily demonstrated in 1947 by Austrian mathematician Kurt Gdel,
which discovered solutions to the equations of Einsteins gravity field equations that allowed
closed loops of proper time (closed time-like curves)31. Each event in such loop lies in its own
causal history and traveler starting his journey at some present moment will inevitably arrive
after some time into his own past.
Secondly, the telling name General Theory of Relativity (GTR), which Einstein gave to his
gravity model, gave reason to many physicists think that this theory describes some general
properties of space, time and motion. Attracted by this promising name some physicists giddily
used the term General Theory of Relativity as synonym of the hypothetical universal theory
spacetime, forgetting that it is only the name of one of many possible geometric models of
gravitation. However, the methodology of theoretical cosmology and the first cosmological
models have been developed on the base of GTR.

31

Gdel, K. An Example of a New Type of Cosmological Solutions of Einsteins Field Equations of

Gravitation // Rev. Mod. Phys. (1 July 1949) 21, 447.

11

For a spherically symmetric volume of observation one of the often used metric in cosmology is
the Robertson-Walker metric, which determines the interval of the form:
ds 2 c2 dt 2 a 2 (t )dr 2 (1 kr 2 ) (12)

Here the scale-factor:

a(t ) r r0 R(t ) R0

(13)

that often is interpreted as the relation of changing Universe radius R(t ) and some constant
scale R0 . In (12) k 1 [L-2] corresponds to a space of positive curvature; k 0 corresponds to
Euclidean flat space and k 1 [L-2] corresponds to a space of negative curvature (hyperbolic
space). Studies have shown that numerous astronomical observations most closely match the
spherically symmetric flat space ( k 0 ), for which can be used the interval defined by the
relation:
ds 2 c2 dt 2 a 2 (t )dr 2

(14)

In 1917, Albert Einstein proposed his first cosmological model of an ageless but spatially finite
Universe adding a positive cosmological constant to his gravitation field equations to
counteract the attractive effects of gravity, which would otherwise cause a spatially finite
Universe to either collapse or expand forever32. Einsteins static Universe is closed hyperspherical volume with positive spatial curvature: R 1 2 c 4 G and radial line element:
ds 2 c2 dt 2 (1 r 2 R2 )1 dr 2

(15)

The first model of 4D-expansion of the Universe with varying time scale appeared a year after
the publication of Einsteins gravitation equations. In 1917, Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter
had found an unusual solution to Einsteins equations for a static metric33 the metric coefficient
of the time coordinate was a function of distance from the observer:
ds 2 c2 (1 r 2 R2 )dt 2 (1 r 2 R2 )1 dr 2 (16)

In the de Sitter world clocks that are further from the observers position at r 0 in the 3D space
manifold would register slower paces of time than the observers clock: t t0 (1 r 2 R2 )1 2 .

32

Einstein, A. // Berl. Ber. (1917) 142.

33

De Sitter, W. // Proc. Akad. Wetensh. Amsterdam (1917 a) 19, 1217. De Sitter, W. // MNRAS (1917 b)
78, 3.

12

This relation defines the ratio of wavelengths of emitted atomic lines: 0 (1 r 2 R2 )1 2 , which
describes the redshift:
z 0 1 2 r 2 R2

(17)

This part of the de Sitter Effect could be regarded as apparent motion of recession. However,
there is a second part of the effect34 due to tendency of particles placed into de Sitter spacetime
to accelerate. The result when there were no initial negative velocities of test particles, put into
the manifold, was that the actual accelerating motion of particles away from the observer just
canceled the quadratic effect of (17) leaving an almost linear redshift-distance relation.
Any static form of a line element can be transformed into a non-static form by a suitable
substitution of new coordinates, which are functionally dependent on the original space-like and
time-like coordinates. In 1920s, Georges Lemaitre35 and Howard Robertson36 independently
discovered coordinates transforming de Sitter static line element (16) into non-static form:
ds 2 c2 d 2 exp(2c R) dl 2

l r (1 r 2 R2 )exp( ct R)

t cR 2 lg(1 r 2 R2 ) (18)

The model (18) describes non-uniform 4D-expansion of the Universe and corresponds to the
following Universes equation of state: 00 p0 0 for proper density 00 and pressure p0 . For
00 the Universe radius is determined by the Einstein cosmological constant: R 3 . The

model can be regarded as spatially closed if is positive, as transforming into the open flat
spacetime of STR if is equal to zero, and as spatially open but curved space-time if is
negative. With negative pressure the de Sitter model describes an exponentially inflating
Universe, which is now one of the miracles of the Big Bang cosmology.
In 1922, Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann was the first to find solutions of Einstein
equations for the expanding Universe with the finite average matter density (see e. g.37). In the
cosmological model, based on the Friedmanns solutions, the matter is modeled as a cosmic
fluid an ideal gas or dust of galaxies. The equation of state for such cosmic fluid is

34

De Sitter, W. Astronomical Aspect of the Theory of Relativity. University of California Pub. in

Mathematics (Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press), 1933, 2, No. 8.
35

Lemaitre, G. // J. Math. and Phys. (1925) 4; 188.

36

Robertson, H.P. // Phil. Mag. (1928) 5; 835.

37

Peebles, P.J.E. Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Rowan-Robinson, M. Cosmology. 4-th Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.

13

determined only by the distribution of energy density c 2 , where is the mass density,
and by isotropic pressure p. For this model energy-momentum tensor in (11) has the form:
T ( p)u u pg .
Friedmanns equations for this energy-momentum tensor in the co-moving frame and spherically
symmetric Robertson-Walker metric, often called the FLRW equations (Friedmann-LemaitreRobertson-Walker equations) have the form:

(a a)2 8 G 3 kc2 a 2 (19 2.6)

a a 4 G 3 ( 3 p) (20 2.7)

In these equations dots above a letters mean differentiation over Newtonian time, as it commonly
accepted in cosmology. Equation (19) is the condition of conservation of energy, and the second
equation (20) is the equation of motion of the ideal gas of galaxies, in which the pressure is
comparable to the energy density.
With the effective energy density E equation (19) often is used in the form:
(a a)2 8 G 3c 2 E

(21 2.12)

In 1932, Einstein and de Sitter proposed a simple model of the Universe expansion that started in
an extremely dense matter state, which was the favorite amongst cosmologists until the 1990s.
This model describes the space expansion rate when the potential gravitational energy of the
Universe is always equal to the kinetic energy of expansion with a net energy of zero. Einsteinde Sitter model corresponds to the model: a a H 0 a 3 2 and for initial condition: t 0 : a 0 it
has the solution:
a (t T )2 3

T 2 3 H 01 (22 2.27)

This model describes the decelerating 3D-expansion of the cosmos: R(t ) R0 (t T )2 3 and
estimates the Universe age for now favorite H 0 70 km/s/Mpc as T 2 3 H 01 9.73 Gyr. Many
astrophysicists consider this estimate as too small, since estimates of the age of old red stars in
globular star clusters are often more than 10 Gyr.
Theoretical cosmology often uses Hubble factor: H (t ) a a , which allows a critical energy
density c to be determined from the equation (21), which corresponds to flat (k 0)
geometry of spatial sections of spacetime:

14

c 3c2 H 2 (t ) 8 G (23 2.15)

This critical density helps introducing very convenient and useful cosmological parameters:
i i c 8 G 3c2 H 2 (t ) i

(24 2.16)

One more frequently used parameter characterizing the Universe evolution is the deceleration
parameter for Newtonian time:

qt aa a 2

(25 2.18)

With the use of deceleration parameter and cosmological parameters modern so-called Standard
cosmological model (SCM; CDM -model) often is presented in the form:
qt 1 2 M (26 2.20)

Einstein-de Sitter model (22) corresponds to (26), in which 0; M 1 and respectively:

qt 1 2 . The favorite estimation for the matter cosmological parameter in SCM is:
M 0.27 0.33 0.3 with only about 15 % of radiation and normal baryonic matter. Remaining

85 % is the share of enigmatic dark matter. The influence of intangible dark energy is
estimated as DE 0.67 0.73 0.7 . Modern Standard cosmological model describing
3D-expansion of the Universe space contains the empirical estimations of cosmological
parameters and estimates the Universe age with H 0 70 km/s/Mpc as T 13.75 Gyr. Equation
(26) describes an invisible Universe filled with unobservable dark matter and dark energy
with only 0.5 % of the observable luminous matter.
In the end of 1920s the doctrine of expanding Universe received observational support in the
redshift phenomenon, discovered by West Slipher, Knut Lundmark, Milton Humason and Edwin
Hubble. It appeared that redshifts z ( 0 ) 0 0 1 , where 0 is the wavelength of the
spectral line of reference standard source in a laboratory, corresponding to the observed spectral
line , in remote galaxy spectra are proportional to distances of galaxies from earthly observers.
Many astrophysicists following Georges Lemaitre considered redshift phenomenon as apparent
Doppler Effect comparing the redshifts with the radiation characteristics of moving objects.
This analogy uses the fact that the observable manifestations of expanding Universe space can be
visually illustrated by the Doppler Effect formula and so-called Hubble law can be represented
by relations, using an apparent effective velocity VU of the Universe space expansion:

15

dr dt VU c z a a r H (t ) r

z (0 ) ( 0 ) 0 VU c (27)

The Friedmanns and Einstein-de Sitter cosmological models, as its modern descendant the
Standard cosmological model, are introducing a co-moving spatial frame of reference postulate
with a constant matter density in space for any moment of time. However, the assumption of the
constancy of matter density in space leads to famous Olbers photometric paradox. The riddle of
the night sky darkness, known as Olbers Paradox, draws our attention to the contradiction
between the amazing darkness of the cosmic space and the logical conclusion that in a limitless
Universe the uniformly distributed Sun-like stars would have to turn the night sky into a shining
Sun-like hemisphere.
The Friedmanns and Einstein-de Sitter models of an expanding Universe and the Damocles
Sword of Olbers Paradox for the Universe with uniform matter density in space caused
astronomers to think about the beginning of the Universe and a time when all matter was
concentrated in a kind of center of the world. In 1931, Georges Lemaitre made a report to the
British Science Association meeting where he presented a detailed account of his theory of hot
birth of the Universe from the Primordial Atom a special Cosmic Egg, exploded at the
moment of Creation. The main ideas of the Lemaitres report were published in Nature in the
same year38.
At first this Lemaitres hypothesis was called the dynamic evolutionary model and later the
term big bang came from a joke made by cosmologist Fred Hoyle, who in his speech in 1949
called it the Big Boom (Big Bang). The Big Bang hypothesis allows a radical resolution of the
Olbers Paradox in SCM by applying the idea of a temporal limit for the existence of the Universe
the age of the Universe is finite. The modern cosmological Big Bang models limit the age of
the Universe at about 14 billion years, and taking into account the spatial expansion of the
Universe we are not able to see objects on the night sky more remote than about 46 billion light
years. From 1960s the different Big Bang models of hot explosive birth of the Universe are
considered as inalienable parts of the Standard cosmological model.
In the 1930s, many astrophysics considered Friedmann and Einstein-de Sitter cosmological
models naive, because these models assume that the evolution of the Universe is determined
solely by gravity, which used only one of many possible geometric models of gravity. These
doubts have led to the development of several more general cosmological models.
Kinematic cosmology proposed by English cosmologist Edward Milne in 1933 did not use the
GRT or any other geometric models of gravitation and was based on the Special theory of

38

Lematre, G. (1931) The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory // Nature
127 (1931), n. 3210; 706.

16

relativity39. Edward Milne realizing the fundamental importance of time in Natural sciences
attempted to present cosmology as purely deductive system based on the methodology of time
measuring. He considered the Universe as a substratum formed by a set of moving
fundamental observers exchanging signals reflected immediately, so that the information
exchange for each pair of observers is a single unbroken zigzag signal. All signals contain
information of the clock-reading indicating the time of latest reflection-event, so that observers
are able to read off one anothers clock indirectly. All measurements including space coordinates
and velocities were reduced to timing the signals as they went from one observer to another.
The general problem of time-keeping in Milnes Universe is whether some particular observer,
which has set an arbitrary clock for himself, can make it congruent with clocks of other
observers irrespective of their relative motion? Milne found that the universal congruence is
possible for two time scales uniform scale t, which he referred to as atomic time, and the
logarithmic scale t0 log(t t0 ) t0 .
Fundamental observer using t-scale views the expanding Universe where other observers retreat
from him with velocities that are proportional to their radial distance from an observer. Formally
it is the cosmological model of an expanding empty space with uniform time scale. It
corresponds to (21) in the form: a a c 2 a that is to E 0; 0 in (26) and negative curvature
( k 1 ). For the initial condition: t 0 : R 0 the Milnes Universe radius grows with the speed
of light: R ct .
The total regraduation from t-time to logarithmic -time of all clocks will transmute a uniformly
expanding Milne substratum in flat space into a stationary substratum in hyperbolic space.
However, the structure of the substratum and its main physical laws will remain the same in spite
of the regraduation. In particular, all atoms must shrink continuously, according to -scale.
The motion of a test-particle, which is inertial when described with the use of -scale will no
longer appear inertial when it is described using t-scale. The effect of passing from -time to ttime is that inertial motion is replaced by accelerated. When the motion of a test-particle is
analyzed with respect to t-scale the result is the emergence of an apparent virtual force giving
the particle a spontaneous acceleration. Having analyzed the motion of a single test-particle
Milne used the Boltzmann equation to examine a whole infinite set of test-particles superposed
upon the Universe substratum.
Besides his new cosmological model Edward Milne constructed a new electrodynamics with socalled super potentials, considered the nature of cosmic rays, the structure of galaxies and
atoms, proposed the use of Voigts coordinate transformations in the -time kinematics.
39

Milne, E.A. World-Structure and the Expansion of the Universe // Zeitschrift fr Astrophysik (1933) 6,
195.

17

The program of Einstein was a geometrization of physics and therefore he considered classical
forces as the products of spacetime geometric structure. Edward Milne by contrast derived forces
as the consequences of local kinematic perturbations in the global uniform expansion of the
Universe substratum. Mogens Wegener explains the essence of Milnes kinematic relativity as
following40: Whereas the aim of Einstein was to reduce inertia to gravitation in accordance with
Machs principle, that of Milne was to reduce gravitation to inertia, in opposition to Machs
principle. In contrast with SCM, which considers the geometric theory of gravitation as global
property of the Universe, in Milnes cosmology the Special relativity becomes a global property
of the Universe while the geometric representation of gravity is confined to a local property.
Alas, Edward Milne did not live long enough to accomplish his cosmological program and his
ideas did not found many followers. However, his papers and books seriously influenced and
stimulated the development of cosmological models competing with the GRT cosmology, as he
firstly proved that an effective cosmology can be created without the use of gravitation. In
particular, he introduced an important Cosmological Principle, which is based on two postulates:
1. All observations of the Universe, which can make an observer in a certain place, are similar to
observations of another observer in any other place.
2. Each observer sees himself to be at a center of spherically symmetric homogeneous and
isotropic volume of space. The mathematical formulation of this postulate of Milnes
Cosmological Principle leads to the relation;
dr dt v r

(28)

The comparison of (28) with (7) demonstrates the equivalence of these two relations. It is quite
accessibly, because Milne actually made the reverse derivation of Vladimir Ignatovski starting
from Lorentz transformations he derived a condition of the space isotropy that was a postulate in
axiomatic STO of Ignatovski.
In 1936, Arthur Walker in his papers on Milnes kinematic theory41 showed that Milnes usage
of the STR is an unnecessary restriction, and that Milnes kinematic method does not presuppose
the validity of the Lorentz transformations. In 1944, Walker presented a proof demonstrating that
the Milnes postulate, asserting the universal space homogeneity, is already contained in the
assertion of the universal space isotropy if there are smooth paths between all observers 42.
40

Wegener, M.T. Milnes kinematic relativity. Ideas in cosmology: a philosophers synthesis // In: Recent
Advances in Relativity Theory, Vol. 1 (Duffy&Wegener, Eds.) Hadronic Press 2000.
41

Walker, A.G. // Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (1937) 42, 90; (1940) 46, 113-154; (1943) 48, 161-179.

42

Walker, A.G. // Journ. Lond. Math. Soc. (1944) 19, 219-229.

18

The Steady-state doctrine in cosmology an idea that the Universe is always expanding but
maintaining a constant average density with matter being continuously created to form new stars
and galaxies was firstly put forward by James Jeans in 1920s. The most known cosmological
model of this doctrine is Steady State Cosmology (SSC) developed in 1948 by Hermann
Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle as an alternative to the Big Bang cosmological model43.
The radial line element in SSC corresponds to equation: a a H 1 T const and has the radial
line element:
ds 2 c2 dt 2 exp(2t T ) dr 2 (29 13)

A steady-state Universe has no beginning or end in time; and in any large volume the average
matter density and arrangement of galaxies are the same. The SSC corresponds to perfect or
strong version of Milnes Cosmological Principle - all observations of the Universe, which can
make an observer in a certain place at certain time, are similar to observations of other observers
in any other places and at any time.
In 1990s, Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Vishnu Narlikar created the improved
Quasi Steady-State Cosmology (QSSC) based on the Machian theory of inertia44. The QSSC
T

was formulated on the base of Einsteins field equations (11) with energy-momentum tensor
constructed in accordance with old Machs suggestion that the inertial mass of a particle arises
from interaction with other particles in the Universe. The simplest solution of QSSC field
equations for Robertson-Walker interval corresponds to the following time dependence of scalefactor:
a(t ) exp(t P) {1 cos[2 (t )] / Q} (30 18)

In this expression the function (t ) is very close to invariable Newtonian time t, except near the
maxima and minima of the scale-factor. The parameters P and Q denote respectively the
characteristic time scale of the exponential Universe expansion and the time periods of cycles,
while the parameter satisfies the inequality 0 1 . For P Q (30) describes a Universe
with a long term exponential expansion modulated by short term oscillations in which a(t ) never
reach zero.
The epoch of 1930-s was a hard time for GRT cosmological models. Richard Tolman, was
probably the first who attract attention of cosmologists to the fact that in cosmological models
43

Bondi, H., Gold, T. // MNRAS (1948) 108, 3. Hoyle, F. // MNRAS (1948) 108, 5.

44

Hoyle, F., Burbidge, G., Narlikar, J.V. A different Approach to Cosmology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2000

19

with Newtonian time the speed of light is variable45. Indeed, for example, the interval (14)
defines the variable speed of light as coordinate velocity on the geodesic line with zero interval
(ds 0) : dr dt c a(t ) const . Soon, John McWitty, William McCrea and Edward Milne
confirmed the non-relativistic nature of GRT models deriving equations of Friedmann
cosmological model (20) by the general methods of classical mechanics from Newtons
gravitation theory and thermodynamics46. To derive Friedmanns equations one can consider, for
example47, the conservation of energy per unit mass for a test particle moving with a surface of
expanding heavy sphere.
The speed of light can be regarded as a universal constant only at the trajectories with Newtonian
time and Minkowski metric defining the interval (9). In GRT Minkowski metric can be used only
locally in small vicinity of a geodesic that is not enough for cosmology. The conflict of GRT
cosmology with quantum photon physics seems particularly distressing since most of the
arguments supporting the Expanding universe doctrine have been obtained assuming that the
speed of light is a universal constant. The variable speed of light has also made questionable the
GRT analysis of early stages of Universes evolution since Maxwell equations and many
relations of quantum physics are not valid for variable speed of light.
Since 1930-s many cosmologists started considering GRT cosmological models only as
incomplete formalisms that must be improved by empirical constants and parameters. The
triumphal epoch of 1910-s, when cosmological solutions of Einsteins field equations contained
only fundamental constants, turned into long search for best empirical parameters for
interpretations of astronomical observations. After empirical estimations of average energy
density in the Universe and Hubble constant appeared the estimation of neutron-proton relation
during primary nucleosynthesis, then density of dark matter and density of dark energy.
Now, for example, recent report of Planck project proposes at least 10 new empirical parameters
for reasonable interpretation of observations using 6-parameter CDM-version of GRT
cosmological model48. And, alas, even this is not enough to obviate all discrepancies of
observations and calculations by GRT cosmological models.
In the end of 1930s, Russian theorist Vladimir Fock demonstrated that every non-relativistic
spacetime with radial line element (14) has relativistic conformal image in Galilean spacetime,
45

.. , . .: , 1974. Tolman, R.C.

Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology. Oxford Clarendon Press, 1934.
46

McCrea, W.H., McVittie, G.C. // MNRAS. (1931) 92(3); McCrea, W.H., Milne, E.A.J. // Math. (Oxford)
(1934) 5 (3); 73.
47

Rowan-Robinson, M. Cosmology. 4-th Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.

48

Ade, P.A.R. et al. // A&A (2013). arXiv:1303:5076v1 [astro-ph.CO]

20

which he named Friedman-Lobachevski space (FLS)49. Fock started from the general
conformal representation of radial interval (14):
ds 2 a(c2 dt 2 dr 2 )

(31)

Then he showed that the theory of FLS can be built on the assumption that the metric interval
(31) allows the group of Lorentz transformations and can be represented in the form:
ds 2 F (S )(c2 dt 2 dr 2 )

S c 2t 2 r 2

(32 19)

In FLS the speed of light is constant and a group of Lorentz transformations provides isotropy of
FLS. The origin of reference frame has no peculiarities and any point of FLS can be transferred
to the origin by these transformations.
The solution of the Einsteins field equations for uniform space distribution of matter with finite
mass density 0 determines the radial line element of the spherically symmetric FLS
corresponding to Friedmanns model:
ds 2 (1 )4 (c2 dt 2 dr 2 )

t 2 (r c) 2

( ) ( )3 H

4 ( )2 M

(33)

The Friedmann-Fock cosmology with the radial line element (33) uses the same assumptions as
the Friedmanns model, but unlike it provides a constant speed of light on the radial geodesics (
ds 0 ).
The Friedmann-Fock cosmology describes an accelerating 4D-expansion of spacetime with a
non-uniform change of not only the space scale but also the time scale without using the
hypothesis of the dark energy existence, or non-zero Einstein cosmological constant. The
redshift dependence on the distance to the luminous object in this cosmology is nonlinear. The
value of the Hubble constant, estimated from observations of distant objects are smaller
compared to the value for closer objects. For H 70 km/s/Mpc and M 0.3 ( 1.8 Gyr and

20.3 Gyr in 33) an estimate of the Universe age in the Friedmann-Fock cosmology is 16.35

Gyr.

49

.. , . . 2- .: , 1961. Fock, V. The

Theory of Space, Time and Gravitation. London: Pergamon Press, 1959.

21

The spacetime geometries, defined by intervals (14) and conformal intervals (31, 32), are
dramatically different and we may visually consider the spacetime geometries with interval (31,
32) as reflections of spacetime geometries with interval (14) in specifically curved mirror.
However, conformal maps are successfully used in physics that is based on the fact that
conformal transformations, changing global geometry of some domain, still preserve both angles
and the shapes of infinitesimally small figures. Therefore, for example, the conformal
transformation of a harmonic function, satisfying Laplace equation over a two-dimensional plane
domain, is also harmonic function. Functions, which are defined by a potential will after
conformal transformation still remain governed by a potential. These features of conformal maps
allow us to successfully use them for analysis of equations defined by a potential that include, for
example, the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field and potential flow in fluid dynamics.
Quantum physics and theoretical cosmology parted company in the end of 1920s. Theoretical
cosmology initially relied on Einstein relativistic equations of gravitation, regarding them as a
basis for the search for specific laws of the mega-world. However, many cosmological solutions
of Einstein equations appeared as non-relativistic and derivable with classical Newtonian
gravitation theory. Eventually, and despite occasional criticism, cosmology continued to use
Newtonian gravitation theory, abandoning the idea of the search for specific relativistic and
quantum laws of mega-world. This was by no means because the failure to realize the limited
prospects of a mega-world theory based on Newtonian gravitation theory and thermodynamics.
The quest for specific mega-world laws was inhibited, until the last quarter of the 20th century,
by an inferior amount of reliable observations of distant cosmic structures.
Early attempts to create the quantum theory of gravitation were initiated in 1920s almost at the
same time as the first success of quantum mechanics. However, quantum theory of gravitation
and a fortiori the quantum cosmology were not developed during the 20th century. The main
formal reasons for this failure can be formulated as follows.
First, the GRT defines the gravitational field with more variables (ten metric tensor components)
than the necessary number of dynamic parameters. Non-linearity of Einstein equations of
gravitation prevents efficient exclusion of excessive variables, in contrast, for example, to
electromagnetic field quantizing.
Second, due to non-linearity of Einstein equations, the GRT is incompatible with the basic
quantum theory superposition principle, as the sum of solutions of non-linear equation is no
longer a solution of the initial equation. This prevents the use of available quantization methods
in Einstein gravitation theory.
In addition to these technical difficulties, GRT and quantum physics are divided by their
conceptual structures. The most serious obstacle for combining these two theories is so-called
Problem of time. In all geometric models of gravity, as in GRT, the movement is determined
by the interval of the world line, which, in turn, depends on the spacetime metric. In geometric
22

theories of gravitation the intervals ds 2 g dx dx contain a mixture of space-like and timelike differentials. Only in his small neighborhood an observer can split a unity of spacetime
into a separate space and time, using the approximation by Minkowski interval (9). But such
a local approximation is useless for cosmology that seeks to explore the global properties of
spacetime.
In GRT the time together with space are internal variables, which depend on the distribution and
dynamic of masses and energy. Contrary to uncertainness of time allocation and measurement in
GRT, in quantum physics a special status is assigned to time that is treated as an independent
background parameter, external to a system or an object. This special role is clearly seen in the
standard formulation of quantum mechanics where time in contrast to space is not an operator,
and is regarded as part of a priori given independent spacetime background or substrate of the
Universe with well defined methods of its measurement.
In the 20th century, three concepts combining GRT and quantum mechanics in cosmology were
considered:
1. Excluding the characteristics of space in the analysis of kinematics used by Edward Milne in
his Kinematic cosmology. But in this concept GRT loses the status of a global theory of
spacetime and can be used only locally.
2. Exclusion of the time from GRT so that it still retains its status of a global theory of
spacetime.
3. The introduction of additional independent of GRT equations for spacetime, or using
multidimensional hyperspaces.
The decisive step to eliminate the time from GRT was made in 1959 by Richard Arnowitt,
Stanley Deser and Charles W. Misner, who developed the so-called ADM-formalism50. This
formalism supposes that spacetime is foliated into a family of space-like surfaces, labeled by
their Newtonian time coordinate. The dynamic (canonical) variables of this formalism are taken
to be the metric tensor of three dimensional spatial slices and their conjugate momenta. Using
these variables it is possible to define a Hamiltonian, and thereby write the equations of motion
for GRT in the form of Hamilton's equations.
In 1967, Bryce Seligman DeWitt using ideas of AED-formalism formulated an equation for the
wave function of the Universe under the name EinsteinSchrdinger equation, which later was

50

Arnowitt, R.; Deser, S.; Misner, C. Dynamical Structure and Definition of Energy in General Relativity //
Physical Review (1959) 116 (5): 13221330. Arnowitt, R.; Deser, S.; Misner, C.. Republication of: The
dynamics of general relativity // General Relativity and Gravitation (2008) 40 (9): 19972027.

23

renamed the WheelerDeWitt equation51. This equation describes the quantum version of the
Hamiltonian constraint using metric variables. It is a functional differential equation on the space
of three dimensional spatial metrics and in it time plays no role:
H 0 (34)

In contrast to the Schrdinger equation: i H describing the evolution of a quantum

object, Wheeler-DeWitt equation (34) defines a set of quasi-stationary states of threedimensional spaces with Riemann metric. In WheelerDeWitt equation the time variable is used
only as a label assigning one of the coordinate axes. The time evolution of the Universe is
represented by a gauge transformation: exp[i (r )] , where (r ) plays the role of local
time. The role of a Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian constraint) is simply to restrict the space of the
possible states of the Universe to that of physical states the ones that follow gauge orbits.
Upon quantization, physical states become wave functions that lie in the kernel of the
Hamiltonian operator.
A program of radical exclusion of time from cosmology and quantum theory of gravitation has
been developed and consistently realized during many years by the English theoretician Julian
Barbour52. The ideological basis of his works are relational ideas of Leibniz about space and time
and the assumption of Mach that the inertial properties of a body are determined by all the other
bodies in the Universe. Assuming, as Leibniz that space it is only the order of mutual
arrangement of a plurality of bodies, and the time the order of alternating phenomena and
material structures, Barbour has created an image of the Universe as static set of threedimensional spaces. Each such space corresponds to a Now is a kind of time capsule that
contains certain information about the origin of the structure of bodies and fields in this space.
According to Barbour the notion of an independently existing time is redundant if one is
considering the dynamics of the Universe. Change does not occur in time. Rather dynamics
relates all changes in the Universe to each other. For a description of the considered set of
51

DeWitt, B.S. Quantum Theory of Gravity. I. The Canonical Theory // Phys. Rev. (1967). 160 (5): 1113
1148.
52

Barbour, J. Relative-distance Machian theories // Nature (1974) 249, 328. Barbour, J., Bertotti, B.
Gravity and inertia in a Machian framewor // Nuovo Cimento (1977) 38B, 1. Barbour, J. The emergence
of time and its arrow from timelessness. In: Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry, eds. J. Halliwell et al,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. Barbour, J. The timelessness of quantum gravity I, II. //
Classical and Quantum Gravity (1994) 11, 2853, 2875. Barbour, J. The End of Time: The Next Revolution
in Physics, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-297-81985-2.

24

Universe state-spaces Barbour does not use the category of time. Instead of the time elements of
this set are linked by cause-effect relationships, which are formalized by the Principle of least
action in the form of the Hamilton-Jacobi. However, the concept of space in this cosmology, in
contrast to the philosophy of Leibniz, plays an important role: I regard space as a glue, or a
set of rules, that binds things together. It is a plurality within a deep unity, and it makes a Now.
Barbours universe looks like a roll of film, where each frame is the image of one of Universe
states, and these states exist simultaneously on the same roll. But in order to understand the
scenario of the film, that is, the basic laws of the Universe, you still must see the movie frame by
frame, which inevitably requires the introduction of the category of time. It is important to see
the movie from the beginning, and not vice versa, that is, it is necessary to determine the
direction of the time progression.

One of promising methods to solve the Problem of time for creation of the quantum theory of
gravitation, some theorists believe is the quantization of space, which of course involves the
introduction of a new quantum constant the fundamental length. The first important result in
this new field of research was achieved in 1947 by Hartland Snyder, who considered operators of
spatial coordinates with a discrete spectrum with the fundamental length parameter53. An
important result of this study was the understanding that space quantization changes the
Heisenbergs uncertainty relation, which takes the form:
px x (1 l02 px2

) (35)

As is well known, the classical quantum mechanics can be formulated as a theory of noncommutative operators, leading to the Heisenbergs uncertainty relation. Snyders uncertainty
relation (35) shows that the classical quantum mechanics may not be effective in the subatomic
world, where distances have the order of the fundamental length.
During the 1950s John Wheeler formulated geometrodynamics, a program of physical and
ontological reduction of gravitation and electromagnetism to the geometrical properties of
curved spacetime of GRT54. He considered the quantum foam - a substratum of fluctuating

53

Snyder, H.S. Quantized space-time // Phys. Rev. (1947) 71; 3841.

54

Misner, C.W.; Wheeler, J.A.. Classical Physics as Geometry // Ann. Phys. (December 1957) 2 (6): 525
603. Wheeler, J. On the nature of quantum geometrodynamics // Ann. Phys. (1957) 2 (6): 604614.
Wheeler, J. Geometrodynamics and the Problem of Motion // Reviews of Modern Physics (1961) 44 (1):
63. Wheeler, J. Geometrodynamics. New York: Academic Press, 1962. Wheeler, J.A., Ford, K. (1998).
Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1998..

25

metric and topology of spacetime with Planck fundamental length lPl 1033 cm as the basic
fabric of the Universe. Such exotic objects as wormholes in spacetime, miniature black holes
and spacetime toroids were used for explanation of elementary particle structures in chaotic subatomic realm of quantum fluctuations.
In 1986 an Indian theoretical physicist Abhay Vasant Ashtekar introduced a new set of canonical
variables to split spacetime into spatial slices and time in GRT55. These variables allowed
rewriting the metric canonical variables on the three-dimensional spatial slices in terms of a
SU(2) gauge field and its complementary variable. Ashtekars variables provide what is called
the connection representation of canonical GRT, which led to the loop representation of
quantum GRT the Loop quantum gravity (LQG).
Loop quantum gravity revives the John Wheelers idea of Quantum foam in the form of Spin
networks and Spin foam (Spacetime foam). Spin network is a one-dimensional graph,
which equipped with labels (quantum numbers) on its vertices and edges which encodes aspects
of a spatial geometry. Spacetime is considered as a superposition of Spin foams, which is a
generalized Feynman diagram where instead of a graph a higher-dimensional complex is used.
The boundary of each Spin foam is a Spin network
LQG is one of attempts to join standard quantum mechanics and standard GRT, by introducing
quantized granular space with a minimum distance possible to travel through it the Planck
fundamental length lPl 1033 cm. The space in LQG is an extremely fine fabric or network
woven of finite loops - Spin networks. Today LQG is a vast field of research with the
application to cosmology Loop quantum cosmology, which applies LQG ideas to the study
of the early Universe and the hypothetic physics of the Big Bang56. Its most spectacular idea is
that the evolution of the Universe can be continued beyond the Big Bang. However, Loop
quantum cosmology has serious conceptual restrictions. As follows already from classical
Heisenbergs uncertainty relation the granulated space may exist only with ultrahigh vacuum
energy. And for such energies as follows from Snyders uncertainty relation (35) the standard
quantum mechanics cannot be used.
The long history of attempts to join GRT and quantum mechanics to create an effective
quantum cosmology reveal serious conceptual problems.
1. In order to solve the problem of time, that is to split a single inhomogeneous spacetime of
GRT into two distinct components space and time, one must use some special transformation
55

Ashtekar, A. New Variables for Classical and Quantum Gravity // Phys. Rev. Letters (1986) 57 (18):
22442247.
56

Ashtekar, A. Loop Quantum Cosmology: An Overview // Gen. Rel. Grav. (2009) 41:707-741.
(arXiv:0812.0177)

26

of nonlinear Einsteins equations. Examples of such transformations are: ADM-formalism,

Ashtekars variables and Barbours method of best matching. All these mathematical
techniques are methods of linearization of Einsteins equations, since their application should
ensure that after quantization the resulting quantum theory of gravity will correspond to
fundamental superposition principle of quantum physics. It remains unknown whether
transformed and linearized GRT still keeps its accomplishments.
2. One of the features of GRT is the covariance of its equations. But theories with covariant
formalism do not have a method of univocal introduction of physical time with respect to which
a system or an object evolves. In covariant formalisms dynamical laws are determined by
correlations which are sufficient to describe evolution. But, covariant formalisms need some
additional theory to explain how the fundamental category of time in macroscopic physics
eventually emerges from initially timeless theory.
3. GRT and its quantized versions use the differential Riemann geometry that describes only
local properties of spacetime. However, in cosmology this local description is insufficient and it
is necessary to use some hypothesis about the properties of spacetime as a whole. In principle,
this problem can be at least partly solved by the use of initial and boundary conditions for the
equations of gravity, but in models of GRT quantum cosmology such limiting conditions do not
play a determining role. As for the various models of the Big Bang with inflation, in them initial
conditions for the gravitation field equations still not determined definitely.
All cosmological models of GRT are based on the idea that the evolution of Universe is
determined by interactions that can be represented by equivalent gravitation that changes the
curvature of spacetime. Without denying this idea the Irreversible-Time Physics (ITP)
developed during the last 20 years admits the existence of physical processes and interactions,
including still unknown, that may not be represented by the curvature of spacetime (Taganov
2001-2015). Using an ideology of General Systems Theory, ITP uses a new Cosmological
principle: the Universe is a unified integral system, and its quantitative description can be
represented in the form of relations between the characteristics of its major subsystems
microcosm and megacosm. In a sense, ITP reconciles ideologies of Newton and Leibniz the
search for the relations (Leibniz) between the microcosm and megacosm uses independent
categories of space and time (Newton).
Irreversible-Time Physics uses the following three assumptions:
1. Physical time , which may be represented in the form of a function of Newtonian time t with
uniform scale, is irreversible:
(t ) (0) (t ) (36)

27

2. All of the processes and interactions in the Universe are determined by the Principle of least
action.
3. Modern Natural science methodology uses the Principle of measurement relativity, which
asserts that the essence of laws of nature is not dependent on the standards used in measurements
of the physical characteristics, which are defined by these laws.
In ITP the only and final cause of time progression is the irreversibility of time (36), where t is
the standard of uniform time scale for reversible time, which may be associated in physics with
idealized Newtonian uniform time scale. Though, probably, no one natural continuous physical
process can be used for creation of an ideal uniform time-scale for cosmological intervals of
time, there are excellent artificial devices producing standards of uniform time-scale watches.
All watches use combined continuous-discrete principle of formation of uniform time scale:
ti 1 ti t . Time scales are collected by a discrete summation operation of the primary intervals
t , which each is formed by continuous physical processes. In pendulum clocks prime intervals

are certain parts of the period of continuous oscillations of a pendulum. Primary time intervals in
atomic clocks are determined by the frequency of feedback signals that stabilize the continuous
vibration of the crystal oscillator that is tuned to resonance with the internal frequency standard,
for example, electronic transitions in cesium atoms. Modern watches have an impressive stability
of primary interval formation. For example, the cesium atomic clock NIST-F2 used since 2014
as a national standard of time in the United States, have uncertainties of t about 1016 , which
corresponds to an error in determination of time less than one second per 300 million years.
General mathematical model of the irreversible physical time , which is characterized by the
condition (36) can be written in the form:
a( ) t

lim 0 a( ) 1

a( ) a( )

(37)

The relations for a condition of the constancy of the speed of light c const , which is provided
by the metrological Principle of measurement relativity, determine the metric non-uniformity of
the physical spacetime. Using the relations: l c ; r ct , after dividing both sides of (1) by the
speed of light c, we get:
l a( ) r a(l c) r

liml 0 a(l c) 1 (38)

As it follows from this relation, in metrically inhomogeneous space a segment length depends
not only on the coordinates of its beginning and end, but also on the size of the segment.
Using the differential of (38): dl a( ) dr to form the interval: ds 2 c2 d 2 dl 2 for metrically
inhomogeneous spacetime, we obtain an interval that formally coincides with the radial interval
28

used in cosmology GRT for the spherically symmetric flat spacetime of expanding Universe
(14), but with another the irreversible physical time :
ds 2 c2 d 2 a 2 ( ) dr 2 (39)

The equations for the derivatives of scale-factor a r R0 : da dt a and da d a may be

obtained from (39) with the condition of the universal constancy of the speed of light on the
trajectories of a photon ( ds 0 ): dr dt a dr d c const . Hence:
R0 da dt aR0 da d c const or da dt a da d and further that:
da dt da d d dt da d a :
d dt a

(40)

a a a (41)

In kinematics with irreversible time the following convenient deceleration parameters can be
used: qt aa a2 ; q aa a2 . Positive values of deceleration parameter correspond to
decelerating motions and negative ones to accelerating motions. Using deceleration parameters
we can prove the following Kinematic theorem of ITP: For deceleration parameters qt ; q with
reversible (t) and irreversible ( ) time the following relation holds:

qt q 1 (42)
From (42) follows that the moderate ( q 1 ) deceleration of motion in irreversible physical
time appears an accelerating motion ( qt 0 ) in the reversible Newtonian time. The motion with
constant speed in the Newtonian time ( qt 0 ) appears the decelerating motion in physical time (
q 1 ). These effects are similar to changes in the kinematics during transitions between

inertial and non-inertial frames of reference.

For the scale-factor: a r R0 ; R0 const are valid: a r R0 ; a r R0 ; a r R0 ; a r R0 and one
can derive from (42):
r R02 (r r 2 r 2 r 3 ) (43)

If we use for the interpretation of (43) the second law of Newton: mr F , it turns out that in
spacetime with physical time per unit mass of the moving body acts a virtual force. For example,
from (43) follows that the inertial motion with constant velocity r const; r 0 in Newtonian
time will look as decelerating motion in physical time, caused by virtual braking force:
29

F r R02 r 2 r 3 . As was mentioned this phenomenon was already discovered by Willem de

Sitter and Edward Milne for several types of inhomogeneous scales for time.
Considering the time-scale invariant cosmology we have to remember that for such theory like
for covariant formalisms the Hamiltonian H in Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the Principle of
least action: H S 0 is equal to zero and one can use the relation:
dS d 0

S const

(44)

Constant action can be defined as the constancy of the product of the unit mass momentum pr
and the unit of radial trajectory of a moving body:
S pr r r r h const

(45)

From this definition of action for a body with a r R0 ; R0 const follows:

a a h R02 A const

(46)

Equation (46) can be integrated for the initial condition: 0 : a 1:

a 1 2 A ; A const
12

(47)

Substituting (47) into (40) we obtain the equation: d dt (1 2 A )1 2 that for the initial
condition: t 0 : 0 has a solution:
t At 2 2 a (1 2 A )1 2 (48)
t A1[(1 2 A )1 2 1] a 1 At (49)

The relations (48, 49) define transformations of scales for irreversible physical time and
reversible Newtonian time, satisfying the Principle of least action.
For microcosm the Principle of least action (45) can be represented in the form known in
quantum physics as the De Broglie equation:
pr S h h 2 k k

(50)

30

In the formulation of the Principle of least action (45), the energy can also be defined as the
action per unit of time: E S t , or as a product of action and frequency: E S . For constant
action (45), this relation is the Planck equation:
E S h h 2 (51)

Thus, the equation of Planck and De Broglie (50, 51) are the two possible formulation of the
Principle of least action for the microcosm.
The Principle of least action (44) in the form: S E const allows using potentials in
relativistic Universe to determine the interactions, for example, the gravitational and
electromagnetic forces. From (44) with r c ; c const follows:
E const const r

(52)

The Principle of least action allows finding the potential representation of the inertial force. As is
known, the Principle of least action S 0 after independent variation of generalized momenta
and coordinates ( p, q) gives the canonical equations of Hamilton:

p H q

q H p

(53)

If transformations defining the generalized coordinates are independent of time, the Hamiltonian
is the total energy: H E T U . The momentum per unit mass of the moving body is p v
and acceleration: a p v , which in accordance with Newton's second law determines the
force acting on a unit mass: f a . The definition of these acceleration and force in accordance
with Hamilton's canonical equations (53) will be:
p a f H q E

(54)

The Hamiltonian for the unit mass of a body moving by inertia in the absence of the field of
potential energy ( U 0 ) is equal to the kinetic energy: H v2 2 . In this case, the canonical
Hamilton equation (54) is equivalent to the definition of acceleration and inertial force for the
unit mass using concept of potential:
p a f I H q (v 2 2) (55)

31

From the Principle of least action (44): S E const for constant volume V const and energy
density: E E V follows the relation: E const (A). The form of Principle of least action
2
(45): r r const can be considered as a differential equation that has a solution: r const .
With this solution, the relation (A) may be represented in the form:

E const r 2

(56)

This equation, which is one of the possible forms of the Principle of least action, is used in ITP
as the equation of state for the Universe.
Visual representations of physical processes and interactions with the help of potential play an
important role in the physics, allowing the wide use of general equation: q , in which the
vector characteristic of a process q is determined by the gradient of potential . This
representation is used, for example, in electrodynamics, hydrodynamics and thermodynamics to
describe flows. With the help of (40, 48) the flow of physical time can be presented in the
same visual form:

q d dt t 1 At

(57)

The flow of physical time directed from the past with smaller characteristic intervals into the
future with larger characteristic intervals.
In modern methodology of science the metrological doctrine is determined by the Principle of
the measurement relativity. All physical characteristics are relative, since their numerical values
depend on the measurement methodology and standards used for basic units. The relativity of
physical quantities highlights their dimensions, for which special rules specify the use of basic
units with the conventional standards.
The Principle of the measurement relativity corresponds to the assertion that the laws of
nature do not depend on the standards used in the measurements of physical characteristics.
The Principle of the measurement relativity unambiguously determines the functional structure
of the dimensions of physical quantities in the form of power monomials: [] La M bT c of basic,
primary dimensions, such as the fundamental triad {L, M , T } space L mass M time T. A
detailed derivation of the dimension formula can be found e. g. in the book57.
One of the consequences of the Principle of the measurement relativity is the constancy of the
ratio of two absolute values of a physical quantity when the standards used in the measurements
57

.. . . 10-. .: , 1987; pp. 1921.

32

change. For example, in the formulation of the relativistic postulate of constancy of the speed of
light there are no restrictions of the methods for measuring the speed of light. It is assumed that
any speed (including the speed of light) can be measured as by finite macroscopic intervals of
length and time {r , t} and with the help of microscopic, quantum characteristics, for example,
using the standard wavelengths and periods of photons { , t} :
Principle of measurement relativity provides the independence of a scale-factor on the physical
nature of the standards used for the basic units. With independence of the reference values of
basic units on the physical nature of standards used for scales R0 , 0 the following relation for the
scale-factor holds: a r R0 0 . If into this relation we introduce the definition of redshift:
z 0 1 , we obtain the following formulation of the Principle of measurement relativity:
a r R0 0 1 z (58)

Belief in the independence of the reference values of the basic units on the physical nature of the
used standards embodied in modern metrology justifying the use of quantum devices as
standards of international macroscopic meter and second with the assumption of a universal
constancy of the speed of light..
The relation r R0 1 z in (58) was confirmed by astronomical observations in the 1920s and
was used later as the Hubbles law (27): cz Hr . Quantum kinematics using Planck and de
Broglie equations determines the proportionality c t of the photon wavelength and its
period t . In determining the distances many orders of magnitude larger than the photon
wavelength can be taken: dr; t dt and then the relation r R0 0 in (58) may be
represented in the form: dr dt R0 c r . This relation can be interpreted not only as evidence of
the Universe space expansion, but also as an experimental confirmation of the Milne-Walker
postulate (28) dr dt v r about isotropy of space for the short-term cosmological observations.
For (49) this relation corresponds to: H a a A (1 At ) and for short-term observations
(1 At 1) determines the approximate value of the constant A in (46-49): A H .

Transformed using the quantum kinematics of photons relation (58) in the form: dr dt R0 c r
that corresponds to the Ignatovskis postulate of the space isotropy (7): v dx dt x , determines
the universal constancy of the speed of light and the necessity of the use of SRT in cosmology.
Thus, the assumption of universal constancy of the speed of light in the micro world and in mega
world, as well as the necessity of the use of SRT and Hubbles law in cosmology are the
consequences of Principle of measurement relativity and quantum kinematics of photons used in
modern metrological doctrine.

33

For a 0 , z 0 1 , r c , A H from (48) one can obtain the following relations for the
redshift z and the metric distance r:
z (1 2H )1 2 1 (59)
r c 2H [(1 z )2 1] (60)

If the dependence of the chemical potential of a substance on the density is of the form:
n the relationship between pressure and density is given by: P n1 . For the relativistic

matter n 1 3 and the total energy is equal to zero: E 0 with the gravitational energy:
58

EG 3Gm2 2r (see e. g. ). The total energy of relativistic Universe, as follows from these

relations, and taking into account the energy equivalent of the mass of Universe M, is given by:
E Mc2 EU (3GM 2 2R) 0 . Here EU is an energy of structures and processes that can be
described by potentials (52) and for which in accordance with the virial theorem
EU UG 2 3GM 2 4R . With these assumptions for the total energy of Universe we shall have:
E Mc2 3GM 2 4R 0 (61)

Substituting into (61) the transformed relation (48): R R0 (1 2H )1 2 one can get an estimate for
the process of growth of the Universe mass:

M 4c2 R0 3G (1 2H )1 2

(62)

Estimates of cosmological time scales and distances can be found by using (48, 49, 61) for
A H . Cosmological scale of Newtonian time can be determined from the Hubble law z Ht
our epoch with z p 1 and t t p : t p H 1 and then:
TH t p Ht p2 2 3 2H

RH cTH 3c 2H

M H 4c2 RH 3G

(63)

For the estimate of the Universe volume VH 4 3 RH3 from (63) can be evaluated the following
estimations of mass density m , energy density E and action density:
m M H VH 4H 2 9 G

58

E mc2 4c2 H 2 9 G

S ETH 2c2 H 3 G (64)

.., .. . . 2-. .: , 1964. (. 397-400)

34

From the Principle of least action (44): S E const for constant volume VH const and (64)
follows the relation: SH 2c2 H 3 G const defining stationary action in mega world. Planck
equation t

2 const can also be represented as an equation of stationary action in the micro

world, if we assume the existence of a finite volume vPl const for the quantum of action:
t vPl

2vPl const . We may also assume that the quantum of action is defined in the same

volume as the elementary charge, i. e. in the sphere: vPl 4 re3 3 with the classical electron
radius: re e2 mec 2 . Corresponding action density in the micro world will be:
SPl

2vPl 3 8 re3 const . Universality of the Principle of least action allows us to formulate

the conditions of dynamic unity of the micro world and the mega world in the form of a
condition of universal stationary action density:
SH SPl KU 2c2 H 3G 3 8re3 1.768 1010 erg s cm-3 (65)

This relation allows representing the Hubble constant as a simple function of fundamental
constants:
H 9G 16c2 re3 1.97 1018 s (61.6 km/s/Mpc) (66)
-1

The Principle of least action, used in the ITP allows determination of the interdependence of key
cosmological characteristics of the Universe and the basic processes in the micro world
represented by fundamental constants (Table 1; see details in59)
Table 1
Key cosmological
parameters

Observations

KU 2c2 H 3G 3 8re3 1.768 1010

Coupling constant of the

micro world and the
mega world (erg c cm-3)
Hubble constant (s-1;
km/s/Mpc)

Theoretical estimations of ITP (Taganov,

2008)

(Tammann et al,
2006) H 63.2 1.3

H 9G 16c2 re3 1.970 1018

s-1 = 61.6

km/s/Mpc

(Sandage et al, 2006)

59

.. . . -: , 2008. ISBN
978-5-902632-04-8. .. . -: , 2014. ISBN
978-5-902632-16-0.

35

H 62.3 1.3

Average mass density (g

cm-3)

m (5 10) 1030

m 4H 2 9 G 9 2G 64 c4 re6 8.217 1030

Energy density (erg cm-3)

and CMB temperature
()

CMB 4.19 1013

CMB m e4

TCMB 2.728 0.004K

TCMB CMB

m r 1

m 3 8 cre3 r 1 1.878 101 r 1 g cm

Fractal dimension of the

cosmic large-scale
structures

D 2 0.2

(1 me mp ) 3.9311013

14

2.685 K
-3

D2

In Table 1: gravitational constant G 6.674 108 cm3 g-1 s-2; Planck constant

h 2 1.055 1027

erg s; the speed of light in vacuum c 2.998 1010 cm s-1; elementary electrical charge e (
3 -2
e2 2.307 10 19 g cm s ); classical radius of electron re e2 me c 2 2.818 1013 cm; mass of electron
me 9.109 1028

g, mass of proton mp 1.673 1024 g, Stefan-Boltzmann constant 7.566 1015 erg

cm-3 K-4.

I. Equations (48) demonstrate progressive increase of irreversible physical time intervals

comparing to the scale of constant intervals of reversible Newtonian time, which is a kind of
deceleration of the physical time. The ratio of physical and Newtonian time intervals decreases
as we consider more ancient epochs (negative t and ): t 1 H 2 t . In the forecast of future
events (at positive t and ) the ratio of physical and Newtonian time intervals, on the contrary,
increases: t 1 H 2 t . This cosmological deceleration of time now is recorded by many
precise measurements, for example:
1. Services of Earth rotation after taking into account the tidal braking register the acceleration of
Earth rotation, a decrease of the rotation period T T 6 109 per century. This effect is well
defined by (48, 66) for t 100 years: d (t ) dt Ht 6.22 109
2. In the astronomical observations of the Moon, the Earth, Venus and Mercury are found
unexplained accelerations of movement that are proportional to their average orbital motion. The
use of (48) to describe the motion of a heavenly body in orbit leads to the equation:
L L0 n L0 nt n H 2 t 2 where n is the mean motion of the planet in seconds of arc per
century, corresponding to the laws of Kepler and Newton. The last term in the right-hand side of
this equation describes accelerations that astronomers observe.

36

II. Comparison of relations a a ; a a for (48, 49) with the Hubble law (27) allows to formulate
specific cosmological uncertainty relations: a a H ; a a H . These relations show, in
particular, that the Universe space can be considered as isotropic only in cosmologically small
regions. Indeed, recent astronomical observations of deep space have found a lot of evidence of
the large-scale anisotropy of space (see, e. g. http://www.timepace.net Asymmetric Astronomy
and Astrophysics - III. Asymmetry and Anisotropy of the Universe).
III. Equation (62) predicts a gradual increase of the Universe mass, that is, the existence of
processes of synthesis of new matter. The average rate of synthesis of new matter can be
3
47
estimated by cosmological scales (63): QH M H THVH 8H 27 G 10 g s-1 cm-3. This rate of
mass growth means, for instance, that in the whole volume of the Earth during all its history
could appear no more than 2 103 gram of hydrogen, not enough to fill a child's balloon. Yet in
the whole Universe this mass growth means the birth of new cosmic objects with the total mass
of more than 105 solar masses, i.e. of the same order as masses of new globular star cluster or a
dwarf galaxy, emerging every second.
The estimated characteristics of the Universe mass growth discussed above by no means suggest
uniform matter synthesis across the Universe. It seems rather that high-energy processes of
matter synthesis occur in relatively few centers, like quasars or active nuclei of massive galaxies.
This cosmological model describes the accelerating expansion of the 4-dimensional spacetime of
the Universe, which can be represented by a 5-dimensional hyperspace with the interval (3.1 in
the book):
ds 2 u 2 (dt 2 dx2 dy 2 dz 2 ) T du

(68)

To describe the physical processes and evolution of the Universe the model SEC uses two time
scales and accordingly two dependences of scale-factor on time (for initial conditions t 0 : 0
):
T [exp(t T ) 1] a 1 ( T ) (69)
t T ln(1 T ) a exp(t T ) (70)

These relations determine the following formulae for redshift and distance in the SEC model:
z T exp(t T ) 1 (71)
r cT ln(1 z) (72)

A steady-state Universe with SEC model has no beginning or end in time; and in any its large
volume the average matter density and arrangement of galaxies are the same. The SEC-model
has only one empirical constant T 14 Gyr that estimates by (69, 70) the following durations of
the Universe past: 14 Gyr and t .
37

As in all cosmologies, using heterogeneous time scales in SEC model exist spontaneous
acceleration of bodies and virtual forces that Masreliez calls cosmic drag. In particular, the
non-relativistic initial velocity of an object v0

c gradually diminishes (1.7 in the book):

v v0 et T

(73)

The SEC model explains the progression of time by progressive increase of Universe scale, when
all the characteristic time intervals progressively increase so that the pace of time (69) slows
down. Some modern philosophers, probably, would not accept such an explanation as logically
convincing. The answer of SEC model to the question about the cause of time progression raises
another difficult question what is the cause of cosmological growth of the Universe scale? The
five-dimensional representation of interval in SEC model (68) allows us to answer this question
the manifold in which we live, in fact, is five-dimensional, and we feel existence of additional
fifth dimension as progression of time.
The Masreliezs Universe can be visualized as a special filming of events on a stage with wall
clock. Filming is carried out in such a way that in each subsequent frame all sizes of objects on
the stage slightly increase compared to the previous frame, and the course of the wall clock is
slowed down.
The effects of cosmological time deceleration are now registered by a number of high-precision
measurements in deep space, in the Solar system and even on the Earth. Quantitative estimates of
the effects of cosmological time deceleration in SEC model differ only slightly from those in ITP
for moderate cosmological distances and time intervals, because the formula (48) can be
considered as the first two terms of the expansion of (69) in a power series. However, for large
time intervals and cosmological distances estimations of SEC model and ITP are markedly
different.
The SEC model does not examine in detail the distribution of matter in the Universe, or the
thermodynamic equation of state of the Universe. In this regard, the SEC model is similar to
Milne cosmology, which is limited to the study of cosmography of relativistic substrate of the
Universe. As in the relativistic model of Milne the SEC substrate expands at the speed of light,
and corresponds formally to expanding empty space with negative curvature. Cosmography of
SEC model with a suitable choice of formulas for the luminosity distance and the angular size
corresponds well to astronomical observations for moderate cosmological distances ( z 2 ).
The development of models of the doctrine of stationary expansion of the Universe ceased to
attract attention of researchers already in the 1970s, largely due to the discovery of bright radio
galaxies, quasars and gamma-ray bursts, which are observed only at very large distances, causing
to assume a relation between age and their distance from the observer that is typical for the Big
38

Bang cosmology. The doctrine of stationary expansion of the Universe was also partly
discredited by the discovery of cosmic microwave background, which strengthened the position
of Big Bang cosmology, but could not find an explanation in models of stationary expansion of
the Universe.
It is useful to compare formulae (69, 70) with the corresponding formulae of ITP (48, 49).
Formulae (48, 49) can be regarded as the solutions of the functional equation (41): a a a( ) for
the initial condition t 0 : 0 , which are also consistent with the formalism (46) a a const of
the Principle of least action. In turn, the SEC formulae (69, 70) are solutions of the functional
equation: a a a(t ) , but they do not correspond to the formulations a a const or a a const
of the Principle of least action and therefore are not consistent with Planck and de Broglie
equations.
Planning the systematic use of the GRT formalism to study the various forms of movement,
Masreliez offered a special cycle of combined discrete-continuous change of the Universe scale
the Discrete Incremental Scale Expansion (DIST). By this DIST process the scale of spacetime
may change continuously in intervals where GRT applies, while the scale adjusts incrementally
to compensate for the changing scale. This allows the 4D geometry to remain unchanged while
the scale of spacetime changes.
This new form of motion with variable scale of spacetime plays in SEC model the same role as
ADM-formalism, Ashtekars variables and the Barbours method of best matching in the
quantum theories of gravitation. The DIST process stratifies a unified spacetime, converting
(67) into the description of a set of conformally similar manifolds. The discrete transition with
changing scale between these manifolds occurs with the speed of light.
The joint use of SEC model and GRT formalism led Masreliez to the definition of inertial force,
as a result of the existence of a dynamic field with potential v 2 2 (A. 5.9 in the book). As already
mentioned, such representation of inertial force also follows from the Hamiltonian form of the
Principle of least action (55): f I (v2 2) . Quite visually the same representation of the inertial
force can be obtained by equating the kinematic time dilation in STR to time dilation in the
gravitational field with potential : t (1 v2 c2 )1 2 t (1 2 c2 )1 2 t . From this equality
follows v2 2 and using broad interpretation of the GRT principle of equivalence one may
assume that the dynamic potential like gravitational potential curves the spacetime.
A sizeable part of Masreiezs book is devoted to the discussion of one of the most controversial
issues of modern physics - the elimination of conceptual contradictions between quantum
mechanics and GRT. In this course he had to pay attention to the ontological contradictions in
the probabilistic interpretation of the wave functions in quantum mechanics.

39

To date, 9 different mathematical formalisms of quantum mechanics60 and more than 30

philosophical and methodological its interpretations are developed and the number of
interpretations increases rapidly. Throughout the history of quantum mechanics a number of new
interpretations was always proportional to the number of already published, and this ongoing for
several decades the exponential intellectual explosion indicates not eliminated doubts and
growing concern of the scientific community.
The majority of paradoxes and contradictions of quantum mechanics is concentrated in the
phenomenon of the deliquescence, delocalization of the wave packets representing the freely
moving micro particles. Micro particle with finite mass can only be represented by a wave packet
occupying finite volume of space x and having a finite interval of wave numbers k .
However, it follows from de Broglie and Schrdinger equations that group and phase velocities
of the wave packet are not the same and therefore the wave packet delocalizes rapidly along the
direction of motion so that its size increases quickly61. For example, the characteristic time for
4

the increase of the protons wave packet to a billion times is less than 10 second. This means
that the volume of the wave packet describing a proton, just during a couple of days grows to the
size of an orange. At the same time systematically studied from the 1930s cosmic rays consist
mostly of freely moving protons having normal size, though the ages of a large part of these
protons are thousands and millions of years.
Louis de Broglie and Erwin Schrdinger at first did not notice this dramatic delocalization of the
wave packet, because they were busy with the analysis of stationary solutions of the Schrdinger
equation that very accurately corresponded to the experimental evaluation of the energy states of
the hydrogen atom obtained by spectrometry. Only in 1927, the article62 of British physicist
Charles Darwin, grandson of the founder of evolutionary theory, attracted the attention of the
scientific community to the inevitable delocalization of a wave packet in quantum mechanics. It
turned out that the basic equations of quantum mechanics are not able to describe the free
movement of micro particles.
The first theorists of quantum mechanics evaded constructive analysis of uncomfortable
phenomenon of wave packet delocalization, using Max Borns idea of probabilistic
interpretation of wave functions - the square of the wave function modulus (r , t ) is the
2

60

Styer, D.F. Nine formulations of quantum mechanics // Am. J. Phys. 2002, 70 (3).

61

.., , M., 1973; .

. . ., M., 1977. Abers, E.; Pearson, Ed. Quantum Mechanics. Addison
Wesley, Prentice-Hall Inc., 2004. Pauli, W. Wave Mechanics: Volume 5 of Pauli Lectures on Physics, Books
on Physics, Dover Publications, 2000.
62

Darwin, C.G. // Proc. Roy. Soc. (1927) A 117, 258.

40

probability density of finding a particle at the point r in space at time t. In his classic article
(1926), Max Born formulated the basic idea of his probabilistic interpretation: The movement
of a particle follows the laws of probability and the probability itself evolves in accordance with
the law of causality.
As the absolutely abstract square of complex wave function determining the coordinates of a
particle, has no clear physical image, one began to consider rapid delocalization as an abstract
idea devoid of any physical sense, implicitly assuming that the true but hidden physical
characteristics of micro particles are quite reasonable. Probabilistic interpretation of the wave
function was maintained and systematically applied in 1930s by Bohr, Heisenberg, Sommerfeld
and Pauli.
Since then, the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is always used to formally
eliminate regularly appearing logic and experimental contradiction in quantum physics. It should
be noted, however, that formalisms of quantum mechanics do not contain the probabilistic or
statistical interpretation of any quantum characteristics and these interpretations are only
postulated. In the for quantum physics fundamental Planck and de Broglie equations no trace of
probability can be found. In addition, in 1940 Dmitri Blohintsev proved that there is no
mathematically correct statistical distribution functions depending on the momenta and
coordinates, which could describe a quantum ensemble63.
The first attempts to get rid of the wave packets delocalization and the probabilistic interpretation
of the wave function in quantum mechanics were already taken in the 1920s. Erwin Madelung
derived the equivalent of the Schrdinger equation in the form of Euler quantum equations64, and
Louis de Broglie in his report at the Solvay Congress introduced the idea of pilot-wave (1927).
After criticism of these works by representatives of the Copenhagen School, who forcefully
developed the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, the ideas of Madelung and de
Broglie were forgotten by almost a quarter century, but revived after the articles by David Bohm
and his followers in the 1950s65.
Quantum hydrodynamics of Madelung and de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory are two
embodiments of the idea of splitting wave-particle duality in microcosm into two interacting
63

Blohintsev, D.I. // Journ. of Phys. USSR (1940) 2, 71.

64

Madelung, E. Eine anschauliche Deutung der Gleichung von Schrdinger // Naturwiss. (1926) 14 (45),
1004. Madelung, E. Quantentheorie in hydrodynamischer Form // Zeit. f. Phys. (1927) 40 (34); 322
326.
65

Bohm, D.A. Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables I // Phys.
Rev. (1952) 85: 166179. Bohm, D. Causality and Chance in Modern Physics. Routledge & Kegan Paul and
D. Van Nostrand, 1957.

41

physical entities corpuscular and wave-like, each of which has its own interpretation and
mathematical description. In the theory of the pilot-wave, velocity of a classical point particle
with finite mass is determined (controlled) by an independent physical object a pilot-wave,
the evolution of which, in turn, is described by the Schrdinger equation with additional nonlocal
potential of a quantum force. Comparing the equations of Madelungs quantum
hydrodynamics with the equations of the De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory it can be seen that
the non-local Madelungs quantum pressure tensor coincides with nonlocal quantum
potential: of the pilot-wave theory.
In order to eliminate the phenomenon of the wave packet delocalization, various nonlinear
generalizations of Schrdinger equation were investigated in addition to the Madelungs
quantum hydrodynamics and De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory. One of the promising trends
in the field of non-linear quantum formalisms is the Unitary Quantum Theory (UQT)66
developed by Lev Sapogin and his followers in 1970-1980s. In this theory, the micro particle is a
dense packet of high frequency waves of certain universal field, which moves in the substrate
(ether, physical vacuum) with linear dispersion. The wavelength of a monochromatic wave
packets enveloping function for the one-dimensional motion coincides with the de Broglie
wavelength and is determined by the wave number of a particle with corresponding momentum
and mass.
During the movement of the wave packet without energy losses, only the phase relations of the
partial waves forming a packet change. De Broglie wave in this model plays the role of only a
stable envelope function of the wave packet and is not included in the set of partial waves
forming a packet. In UQT a micro particle during uniform motion periodically with the
frequency of the de Broglie wave loses its charge and mass-energy and later restores them again.
Non-linear equations of the Fock-Klein-Gordon type for particles with oscillating masses and
charges are the basis of the UQT formalism.
An impressive achievement of UQT is the theoretical calculation of the elementary electric
charge, the fine structure constant and the mass spectrum of several tens of elementary particles.
In our time, UQT is used not only as one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, but also
successfully applying in energy and space engineering.
66

Sapogin, L.G. Unitary Field and Quantum Mechanics / Investigation of Systems, Vladivostok, Academy
of Sciences of the USSR, No. 2, 54 (1973). Sapogin, L.G. On Unitary Quantum Mechanics // Nuovo
Cimento (1979) 53A(2), 251. Sapogin, L.G. A Unitary Quantum Field Theory // Annales de la Fondation
Louis de Broglie (1980) 5(4), 285. .., .., ..
. . / (). , 2003. Spogin, L.G., Ryabov,
Yu.A., Boichenko, V.A. Unitary Quantum Theory and New Source of Energy. Archer Enterprises, Geneva,
NY, USA, 2005.

42

In the Irreversible-Time Physics (ITP) the Planck and de Broglie equations are not considered as
descriptions of wave-like motion in the micro world, but are considered as interrelated
formulations of the Principle of least action for the movement of micro particles. Interpretation
of quantum mechanics in the ITP is based on two assumptions67:
1. It follows from the theory of linear measure of sets that time in micro world with finite
uncertainty of measurements can be represented only by complex numbers.
2. The motions in the micro world define the Principle of least action.
Under these assumptions, the physical processes in the micro world are described by the class of
equations of quantum self-organization, which includes the inhomogeneous Schrdinger
equation. However, the homogeneous Schrdinger equation describing the free movement of
micro particles does not belong to this class of equations and therefore in such interpretation of
quantum mechanics the problem of wave packet delocalization does not exist.
There is no wave-particle duality in micro world and moving micro particle in each moment of
complex time has a well-defined position. Depending on the resolution of a measuring device,
we can see a path of individual particle, or the result of quantum self-organization of sufficiently
large ensemble of particles, after its interaction with the device for observation. In quantum
physics, there are a lot of experiments, reliably recording corpuscular characteristics of
individual micro particles, but there are no experiments that detect any wave properties of
individual micro particles. Modern experiments clearly demonstrate the existence of trajectories
of not only massive particles, but also photons. Individual micro particles do not have wave
properties, but numerous ensembles of micro particles interacting with some devices capable of
forming wave patterns of self-organization, like interference and diffraction.
In his book Masreliez firstly convincingly demonstrates that the SEC model and its DIST process are
able to provide compatibility of GRT and quantum mechanics under the following assumptions:
1. The wave functions of quantum mechanics associated with the micro particles are determined
by Compton oscillations of spacetime metrics, which are modulated by these wave functions.
Modulation of the Compton oscillations of spacetime metric during micro particle motion causes
the de Broglie matter-wave.
2. A particles energy determines its relativistic Compton frequency, which generates a
corresponding resonance pattern.

67

.., .. . - .: , 2001; ISBN 5-79970292-1. .., .. . . - .:

, 2015; ISBN 978-5-902632-17-7.

43

3. In quantum world the superluminal correlation may exist via the metric scale of spacetime, which
is a new channel of influence beyond spacetime itself.
In quantum SEC model as well as in Sapogins UQT wave packets representing micro particles
are formed by high-frequency oscillations and de Broglie waves are only modulations of these
oscillations and therefore there is no delocalization of wave packets. For the interpretation of the
wave functions of quantum mechanics in SEC model there is no need to use probabilistic or
statistical concepts because their physical meaning is clear enough. The effectiveness of the
proposed metric model of wave packets is demonstrated by the successful derivation of the
Schrdinger equation and equations of the pilot-wave theory from the field equations of GRT.
The basic idea of the SEC model is the assumption about scale equivalence of the Universe at
all times, that implicitly suggests scale invariance of the fundamental laws of physics. The study
of scale transformations of mathematical physics equations and their solutions in our time is a
vast field of research with hundreds of articles and dozens of monographs devoted to this topic68.
The impetus for research in this area was the development of the theory of fractals in 1970-1980,
and many works in this field still preserve methodological connections with fractal geometry.
Since the beginning of the 1990s, a promising field was the study of the results of the
introduction of the scale, as an additional dimension to complement the four dimensions of
spacetime69. In particular, the analysis of scale transformations by the methods of fractal
geometry allowed the French physicist Laurent Nottale develop a theory of scale relativity70.
In this theory, a general physical Principle of Relativity is applied to the scale transformations,
introducing a fractal structure of spacetime and the new universal invariant the Planck length
lPl G c3 , which in this theory plays the same role as the speed of light in the STR.
12

By the mid-1990s, studies of scale transformations have shown that restriction of scale
invariance cannot be introduced for many equations of physics. Even such scale-invariant
equations as Maxwells equations without charges and currents, or the equations of Newtonian
68

., Henriksen, D. Scale Invariance: Self-Similarity of the Physical World.

Wiley-VCH, 2015. ISBN 978-3-527-41335-5.
69

Oldershaw, R.L. Self-Similar Cosmological Model: Introduction and Empirical Tests // Int. Journ. of
Theor. Phys. (1989) 28, No. 6, 669694. Oldershaw, R.L. Discrete Scale Relativity // Astroph. and Space
Science (Oct. 2007) 311, No. 4, 431. ..
. ., 1992. .. . ., , 2000.
. http://www.wikiznanie.ru/ .
70

Nottale, L. Fractal Space-Time and Microphysics: Towards a Theory of Scale Relativity. World Scientific,
London, 1993. Nottale, L. Scale-Relativistic Cosmology // Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, (2003) 16, 539.
. http://luth.obspm.fr.

44

hydrodynamics lose scale invariance, if their initial or boundary conditions include parameters
with the dimension of length or time. Many fundamental constants and parameters, for example,
Planck constant and the elementary charge, are not scale-invariant.
A serious restriction of scale invariance of descriptions of the physical processes is the loss of
scale invariance after affine transformation: f (r ) f (r ) A . Even the self-similar fractals are
scale-invariant only for discrete values of the scale factor. Moreover often additional translations
and rotations must be applied to match the transformed fractal up to itself.
In the Bible, in the tale about the Tower of Babel, we may see a warning about the absence of
scale invariance in our world. When increasing the scale of length r all weights increase as r3,
and the areas as r2 so the stresses increase in proportion to r. However the strength of most
materials that is inversely proportional to the average intergranular distances in their structures,
decreases as 1/r. Therefore, in world with increasing scale, all buildings inevitably will have the
sad fate of the Tower of Babel.
In modern industry, the absence of universal scale invariance is causing a lot of trouble and
additional expenditures in the development of new machines and technologies. For example, to
estimate the most important strength and performance characteristics of missiles and planes
cannot be used their miniature models and engineers have to build huge stands for testing of fullsize prototypes.
However, it should be borne in mind that the study of scale invariance of physical equations
were carried out in most cases only for linear transformations and does not take into account the
progression of time. Recent studies have shown that the scale-invariant cosmology is principally
possible, but in it not only changes the form of the equations of mechanics and electrodynamics,
but also will be significantly transformed many fundamental concepts of dynamic
characteristics71.
The past of the 20th century not only changed the most physical theories, but also led to a
revision of many methodological concepts of science. Hopes of enthusiasts of the Universal
Theory of Everything is not incarnated in a unified field theory or theories of multidimensional
strings and membranes. Long-term efforts of hundreds of theorists led only to validation of the
long-standing pessimism of Ludwig Boltzmann: The more general is the theory, the more
illusive its physical results.
The history of science in the 20th century shows that the amount of theories and mathematical
models in Natural science is not reducing, but rather increasing. One may remember more than
71

Barbour, J. Scale-invariant gravity: particle dynamics // Classical and Quantum Gravity (2003) 20; 1543.
(arXiv:gr-qc/0211021). Barbour, J., Anderson, E., Foster, B.Z., Murchadha, N.O. Scale-invariant gravity:
geometrodynamics // Classical and Quantum Gravity (2003) 20; 1571. (arXiv:gr-qc/0211022)

45

10 successfully used models of the atomic nucleus, or more than 30 geometric models of gravity.
The development of scientific methodology fully confirms the conclusion of General systems
theory that the complex system not necessarily has a single formal description and, moreover,
that there may exist an effective formal description of a complex system that cannot be built by a
sequence of correct logical reasoning.
The multiplicity of mathematical models for a complex system is probably one of the laws of
knowledge, and is fully consistent with the eastern wisdom: Nobody can see and count all the
facets of a diamond, looking at it only from one side. I believe that the main advantage of a
mathematical model or theory is not its explanatory potential but the ability to predict the
existence of new physical phenomena and processes that can be studied experimentally. This
magical feature of mathematical models makes the deductive method of mathematical
hypotheses very effective tool of knowledge.
For me, the book by Carl Johan Masreliez is attractive in the first place, by the hope that
described in it the unusual SEC model can lead after further development to the discovery of new
physical phenomena. In modern science, not excluding theoretical physics, as in the early
classical mechanics, unnatural reversible time of Newton with uniform scale, based on the model
of the medieval concept of geometric time by Nicholas Oresme is still used and there is no
explanation of time progression. Since reversible Newtonian time is a corner stone of a
conceptual foundation of modern Natural science, replacing it with the irreversible physical
time with variable scale corresponding to all observations of nature is likely to be a lengthy
process. However, the analysis of even approximate models of irreversible time may lead to the
discovery of new physical phenomena.

-
Saint Petersburg

..
I.N. Taganov

46

The Scale Expanding Cosmos model

There is no subject so old that something new cannot be said about it.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

Preface
This Technical Monograph summarizes work on a new cosmos model. However, the
development below is somewhat atypical in that it addresses questions, and discusses ideas, not
commonly brought up in scientific publications or in daily communications. Some of these ideas
are ancient and seem to be more fundamental than many of the issues addressed at length in
modern scientific treaties.
Arguably most fundamental of all is the question: What causes time to progress? We all keenly
experience the passage of time, but what is causing it? Obviously the progression of time is of
immense importance to all of us, yet there is no explanation for it. Nobody knows what is
causing time to pass, but strangely science has largely ignored this unresolved issue.
How can we expect to be able understand and model the world scientifically if we do not know
what is causing the progression of time? The General Relativity (GR) theory cannot explain it,
nor can any other of our scientific theories. It seems that this should rule out attempts to use the
GR theory for modeling the cosmos, yet the currently accepted cosmos model is based on GR.
And, since science in the past has not found a valid explanation for what causes time to progress
one may wonder if our foundation of science is sound. Are Newtons laws of motion and
gravitation really valid?
These questions may seem inappropriate since they challenge the very foundation of science, but
if we cannot explain such a fundamental phenomenon as the progression of time, can we really
rely on the scientific epistemology taught in our schools?
This monograph addresses this question and concludes that there are issues beyond current
understanding that may revolutionize not just science but our world-view in general.

47

However, these new ideas are difficult to introduce because they do not fit into current
epistemology. They break new ground; past knowledge sometimes becomes a detriment rather
than an asset. Yet, as we shall see, a veil that in the past has hidden the true nature of the world
and our existence is lifted and we enter into a new world of breathtakingly simple beauty.
According to the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides of Elea (500 BC) existence cannot have
been created out of non-existence. Therefore he argued that all speculation regarding the creation
of the world should be abandoned, at least from a scientific point of view. Granted, this will
disagree with the common idea that God created to world. However, if we want to adhere to a
physical explanation to our world, we should simply give up on the idea of creation. Some may
speculate that our cosmos might have been spun off from a mother universe but this does not
solve the problem of the origin of existence either. As long as we are thinking in terms of a
creation of the world we are facing the same impossible enigma; we simply have to accept that
the world always has existed and always will exist!
This simple conclusion will in one stroke rule out the currently popular cosmos model based on
the Big Bang creation (out of nothingness), which here will be referred to as the Standard
Cosmological Model (SCM). In the past this model has been revised several times when new
observations have become available that disagree with its predictions, and recently new
observations have all but disqualified the SCM.
As we shall see the idea of perpetual existence carries with it several important consequences
that lead to a new appreciation of the nature of our existence. This monograph explores these
consequences and introduces a new cosmos model of perpetual existence that agrees with all
observational findings and explains mysteries like the Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
However, it implies major revisions both to science and to our world-view.

Chapter I: Introduction
This monograph summarizes the reasoning and considerations that motivated a new cosmos
model, which resolves several cosmological puzzles and observational discordances that hitherto
have been unexplainable.
48

This new cosmos model, which will be denoted the Scale Expanding Cosmos (SEC) model
challenges our current view of the world as being created in the so called Big Bang event some
14 billion years ago. The SEC model introduces a new idea, which to my knowledge has not
previously been investigated or developed. I will show that the SEC model agrees with
astronomical observations and that it resolves a number of previously unexplainable
cosmological mysteries. The SEC model has so far been ignored although published in a number
of papers [Masreliez, 1999, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2005a, 2006c, 2007b]. There also is a book
[Masreliez, The Progression of Time, How expanding space and time forms our world and
powers the universe, Amazon, 2013].
In a presentation like this it is customary to refer to earlier work in order to clarify how the new
contribution fits into the framework of current epistemology and ideas. However, the SEC model
has to my knowledge no known precursor in science or in philosophy; it may represent a new
direction of physics that, if it turns out to be correct, will force revision of current physics
reaching all the way back to Galileo and Newton. This claim may seem preposterous, but it will
be justified.
To get the reader in the right frame of mind from the outset a few fundamental questions will be
posed.
Question 1:
Was the world created?
Although it seems obvious to us that the world must have had a beginning in some kind of
creation, this idea was logically refuted by the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides of Elea
(500BC), who was held in high esteem by Plato.
He reasoned:
Only being is - non-being is not. But, if only being is, there can be nothing outside this being
that articulates it or could bring about change. Hence being must be conceived as eternal,
uniform and unlimited in space and time.

49

It seems obvious that something that exists cannot have had its origin in something that does not
exist!
Parmenides further argued:
For never shall this be proved: that things that are not - are.
But do restrain your thought from this path of inquiry, and do not let habit born from much
experience, compel you along this path. Judge by reason the highly contentious disproof that I
have spoken.
Only one path is left for us to speak of: that it is.
In other words, we should simply accept that the world exists and may always have existed.
Although this conclusion disagrees with traditional thinking, and with current physics, it has the
advantage of avoiding the mysterious and illogical creation event. In the West there is the
general belief that God created the world, and in the past questioning this creation myth
amounted to heresy. However, if an almighty God really created the world, we may ask why he
should have created a world of limited existence, doomed to suffer the eventual demise predicted
by current physics? Wouldnt an almighty God rather have created a world of perpetual
existence?
It will be shown that although the laws of thermodynamics currently rule out perpetual
existence, a world of perpetual existence may actually be possible!
Question 2:
What determines the cosmological scale of material objects?
Lets consider the following thought experiment:
We are given the task of creating something out of nothingness. (For the moment lets ignore the
unreasonableness of this request!)
Lets say that the first object to be created is an apple. At what size shall we create it? In
nothingness the scale of the apple should not matter. It could be the size of a pea, and apple, a

50

basket ball, or even the Earth, provided that its atoms and all its other attributes were scaled
accordingly. This suggests that worlds of different scales might exist.
From what we currently know this should actually be true! GR does not show any preference for
any particular scale of material objects. Its field equations remain identically the same regardless
of the metrical scale because the Christoffel Symbols are identical for line-element differing
only by a constant scale. This is also true in geometry; a sphere is a sphere regardless of its scale!
This conformal scale property of the universe will here by called scale-equivalence.
Accordingly worlds of different scales would appear identical to their inhabitants. If this is true
we may wonder why the scale of our world is what it actually is.
Or is it?
Perhaps the cosmological scale slowly changes with time? Perhaps this is the nature of the
cosmological expansion; the expansion could be in the scale of both space and time (spacetime)
and not only in space as in the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM). Since by scaleequivalence all epochs are geometrically identical the cosmos could keep expanding perpetually
without ever changing!
Question 3:
What is causing the progression of time?
This is an age old question that still remains unanswered.
What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I do not
know.
Augustine of Hippo (From Confessiones lib xi, cap xiv, sec 17 (ca. 400 AD))
This situation has not changed in the sixteen centuries since then; we still dont know what is
causing time to progress. But, strangely some of us seem to think that we may explain the
universe without having an answer.
This cannot be done!

51

General Relativity (GR) does not help here, since it cannot explain the progression of time either.
And, since most of our currently contemplated cosmos models are based on GR these models
will all fall short. This should not be surprising; because the progression of time arguably is the
most important and keenly felt aspect of our existence it has to be taken into account in any
cosmos model.
Albert Einstein admitted that he did not know what is causing the progression of time either.
Here is a quote from a letter he wrote after the death of his old friend from is school days,
Angelo Besso:
...for us physicists believe that the separation between past, present, and future is only an
illusion, although a convincing one."
Furthermore, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity,
Einstein writes:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure (spacetime) no longer any sections which
represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely
suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as
a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional
existence.
However, the four-dimensional existence modeled by GR might not suffice to describe the
world. The cosmos is all about motion; and motion is impossible without the progression of time.
However, since current physics cannot explain the progression of time it cannot properly explain
motion either. In fact, by current physics time may run both in the forward and backward
direction. However, since time always progresses forwards, which is known as the arrow of
time, current physics cannot explain the world.
We simply have to accept this fact.
By the SEC model cosmos expands without ever changing it four-dimensional (4D) geometry as
perceived by co-expanding inhabitants. This is illustrated in the figure.

52

Figure 1: Scale-equivalent worlds

Changing the metrical scales of space and time four-dimensionally means that the cosmos
remains the same for its inhabitants, which makes perpetual existence possible.
By the SEC model the progression of time mirrors the cosmological scale expansion.
The cosmos expands by incrementally increasing the four-dimensional scale of spacetime at each
step reproducing the 4D geometry modeled By GR. (This may be compared to a movie which
models motion as a sequence of picture frames.) Furthermore, as we shall see, this process is
involved in all kinds of motion, whether in time or in space.
The scale of spacetime acts as an additional dynamic degree of freedom beyond the four
spacetime dimensions of GR.
It will be shown that this new thinking will explain the world we see and experience.
The content of this monograph addresses three different subjects:

The SEC model

The link between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

53

Motion and the origin of the inertial force

The latter two subjects became unexpected consequences of the SEC model that in their own
right deserve independent attention.
This monograph will show that there is a line-element of GR, the SEC line-element, which
agrees with several cosmological tests. It also explains observational discordances in the solar
system, for example the drifts in planetary positions relative to their computed ephemerides,
which have been confirmed by optical observations.
It will be shown that the difference between Universal Time and Ephemeris Time primarily may
be a consequence of the cosmological scale-expansion rather than a slowing rotation of the Earth
due to tidal action. It also suggests and explanation for the Pioneer Anomaly [Anderson et. al,
2003] and it implies that the Moon is not receding from the Earth as fast as currently estimated;
the Moon could have been formed at the same time as the Earth.
Furthermore, the components of the energy-momentum tensor for the SEC line-element do not
disappear; its positive T00 component equals Einsteins Critical Density of his paper on
cosmology [Einstein, 1917].
This may explain the origin of Dark Energy.
The three negative components correspond to a Cosmological Constant, which explains the
recently discovered accelerating cosmological expansion. However, the net energy of the
energy-momentum tensor disappears; the net vacuum energy of the SEC model is zero.
These excellent agreements with observations, and the resolution of several cosmological
puzzles, suggests that the metrical scale of 4D spacetime could act as an additional dynamic,
cosmological, degree of freedom beyond the four spacetime dimensions. The progression of time
may directly mirror the cosmological scale expansion, which acts everywhere across the cosmos
from huge mass accumulations in the form of galaxies down to subatomic particles. This would
also explain why all of us intimately experience the progression of time as being perhaps the
primary aspect of our existence.

54

Furthermore, as we shall see, the scale expansion may be a perpetual power source for the
cosmos.
Although the SEC model cannot be described by the continuous 4D manifold of GR, it may
instead be modeled by a new process denoted Dynamic Incremental Scale Transition (DIST)
whereby the 4D scale of spacetime is being adjusted in a stepwise manner. Another possibility
would be to add the scale as a fifth dimension of GR. This suggests that incremental progression
of time might cause the metrical scale of spacetime to oscillate. Modeling such oscillation in GR
allows the derivation of Quantum Mechanics (QM) from GR! This suggests that the QM wave
functions may be modulations of the metrical scale of spacetime, which could provide the
missing link between GR and QM, and merge these two theories into a single five-dimensional
theory. It would provide and ontological explanations to the QM wave functions as being
oscillations in the scale of spacetime. Furthermore it would explain the Kaluza-Klein miracle
by which Maxwells equations are derived from a 5D version of GR, suggesting that the fifth
dimension should be taken into account not only in cosmology but in all aspects of motion.
The origin of the inertial force has never been explained. Although Newtons celebrated second
law, F=am, postulates the existence of such an inertial force F, an explanation to its origin has in
the past been missing. Since there can be no motion unless time progresses, the dynamic scale of
spacetime may participate in all motion, in space as well as in time. This idea is investigated with
the objective of finding an explanation to the inertial force. By applying a dynamic scale-factor
to the Minkowskian line-element a certain scale-factor is found for which all accelerating
trajectories will take place on GR geodesics. If the metrical scale for all accelerating objects were
to contract in a relative sense by this scale-factor it would explain the inertial force as being a
phenomenon akin to gravitation, being caused by spacetime curvature.
Such dynamic scale contraction would also explain the length-contraction and time-dilation of
Special Relativity. Furthermore, it would unambiguously resolve the Twin Paradox by allowing
the observed time in moving frames to differ from the local time, while allowing clocks in
inertial frames to run at the same pace. This admits the existence of an absolute cosmological
temporal reference. However, this would mean that inertial frames are in different 4D manifolds
of GR separated by different relative scales in a five-dimensional cosmos. If this is true it would
mean that Special Relativity is in need of conceptual revision.
55

Some of the detailed derivations in support of this development may be found in the text, while
the more elaborate technicalities may be found in the appendices.

Dynamic Incremental Scale Transition (DIST)

Key to appreciating the SEC model is to become comfortable with the idea of being an inhabitant
who participates in the cosmological scale-expansion. You might perhaps wonder if this new scaleexpansion process really is allowed since it probably never has been considered before. However,
the world is what it is, and might not be what we think it is.
And, as we shall see, there is a good reason for this scale-expansion since it generates energy that
makes perpetual existence possible.
Science is a game played with certain rules, and the scale expansion process does not yet belong
among these rules. But we must remember that all our rules of science were laid down based on
previous knowledge. We are continually expanding our knowledge base and revising these rules. The
scale expansion might be such a revision that adds another dimension to our existence, but does not
invalidate GR.
If the scale of four-dimensional spacetime were to change incrementally it would not alter its 4D
geometry since the field equations of GR would remain unchanged. Generally, the process may be
described by the loop depicted in Figure 2.

56

Figure 2: The DIST cycle

This semi-continuous loop will be denoted Discrete Incremental Scale Expansion (DIST). Here, f(x)
signifies a function of possibly all four coordinates of spacetime. By the DIST process the scale of
spacetime may change continuously in intervals where GR applies, while the scale adjusts
incrementally to compensate for the changing scale.
This allows the 4D geometry to remain unchanged while the scale of spacetime changes.
Because of this incremental step the four-dimensional geometry always remains the same. Therefore,
the DIST represents a new kind of motion that takes place beyond the 4D manifold of space and
time.
It makes use of scale-equivalence, which might be the most fundamental of all symmetries. It is a
process that does not change the energy-momentum tensor of GR; it does not cost anything, so it
can take place without energy loss. It is therefore not surprising that the universe takes advantage of
this process in its cosmological expansion mode. Note that relative to a co-expanding observer the
DIST process becomes cyclic in nature since the four-dimensional geometry of the SEC returns to its
starting point by the end of each cycle. This explains the eternal aspect of the progression of time that
takes place in a fifth dimension beyond the four spacetime dimensions. This also explains why the
passage of time always has been enigmatic in the past; it cannot be explained as motion in space or
time.
However, we must keep in mind that we are trying to model the dynamic scale process by extending
the applicability of known physics. At first this might appear to be questionable, but it is possible that
the DIST process is more fundamental than the traditional continuous processes we are used to. We
must acknowledge that continuous processes are achieved by visualizing increments in time and
space as becoming arbitrarily small, which we now know is impossible due to quantum theory and
the wave aspect of particles. Therefore, we should not expect that all aspects of the world might be
modelled by continuous processes. Continuity may not apply for motion in scale, at least not in four
dimensions. In other words, our extensive use of differential methods, which have served us so well
in the past, may have outlasted their applicability.

Chapter II: The SEC model

57

Initially I thought that cosmological four-dimensional (4D) scale expansion may be modeled by
using a line-element in GR:
ds 2 e2t /T

c dt

dx 2 dy 2 dz 2

(II.1)

Here t is atomic time and T the Hubble Time (about 14 billion years), which currently is
associated with the age of the SCM. I will call this line-element the SEC line-element. In the
following the speed of light c will be set equal to one, c=1, to simplify the writing. Thus time
will be measured in light-seconds rather than seconds.
The reader familiar with GR and the SCM might here immediately object to this form since this
line-element easily may be changed into a standard Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW)-type
line-element by the transformation t=Texp(t/T).
2

t'
ds dt ' dx 2 dy 2 dz 2
T
2

(II.2)

According to GR these two forms of the line-element are physically equivalent. It therefore
seems that the SEC model does not introduce anything new. In the SCM the time t is usually
referred to as proper time, which is the temporal coordinate in the absence of gravitational
fields or acceleration.
However, the main idea behind the SEC model is cosmological scale-equivalence that makes all
epochs physically identical. This also means that the cosmological scale expansion is an inherent
feature of the cosmos that does not alter its 4D geometry. Therefore atomic time t is not what we
call proper time but is subject to perpetual change with the accelerating scale metric.
Translation in time t=>t+

gives line-element:

ds 2 e2 t /T e2t /T dt 2 dx 2 dy 2 dz 2

(II.3)

Since this line-element is scale-equivalent with the SEC line-element the constant scale factor
exp(

/T) may be ignored. Inhabitants in the SEC always experience the cosmos geometry as

being flat with a Minkowskian line-element, but also experience the effects of the dynamic scaleexpansion modeled by the SEC line-element.
58

Furthermore, since the SEC is scale-equivalent for translations in time, we may always set t=0
at the present time.
The time NOW becomes a perpetual temporal reference with time t running negative into the
past with diminishing scales. This is true for all epochs, and is consistent with perpetual
existence. Therefore, the most natural temporal reference in a perpetual scale-expanding cosmos
is the present time NOW.
Another way of seeing this is be to make the substitution ds=>dsexp(

/T) in (II.3), which

restores the SEC line-element (II.1). Repeatedly implementing this dynamic scale transition
process would suggests a new dynamic scale-dimension beyond the four dimensions of
spacetime, which cannot be modeled by GR.
This process may be modeled by the DIST loop:

Figure 3: The DIST loop of the SEC

Therefore the SEC model implies new physics.

However, note that at all times we may still investigate the consequences of cosmological scale
expansion using GR, because the SEC is scale-equivalent for translations in time.
59

The SEC line-element deserves serious consideration because as we shall see its observational
predictions excellently agree with measurements, and it also explains previously unresolved
mysteries, for example Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

A few useful relationships derived from the SEC line-element

The age of the cosmos
We first note that if the scale increases with time so that the duration of time intervals always
keep up with this increasing scale, the duration of a proper second increases exponentially
with time. Although the SEC line-element may at each instant equal the Minkowskian lineelement, the seconds of the past were shorter by the factor exp(t/T) (remember that t<0 in the
past).
The age of the cosmos may therefore be found by integration:
0

" Age "

t /T

dt T (II.4)

The age of the SEC as expressed in the current duration of the year is always the same, and
equal to the Hubble Time, T, about 14 billion years. This may always have been true; 14 billion
years ago the cosmos was also 14 billion years old!
The Hubble Time T is a cosmological constant that has nothing to do with the age of the
universe!
In the figure the upper graph illustrates the SEC time-scale and the lower the SCM.

60

Figure 4: The SEC and SCM time-scales

Cosmic Drag
In Appendix I the SEC geodesic of GR for free translational motion is derived from the SEC
line-element:

v
0 e t /T

c
1 02 02 e 2 t /T

(II.5)

v
0 0
c
Here v is the velocity and t>0 is the time of travel. There is another form of (II.5) relating
relativistic velocities of Special Relativity:

0
1

2
0

e t /T

(II.6)

Note that if the initial velocity v0=c in (II.5), then v=c for all t.
However, if the initial velocity v0<<c, then:
This will be denoted Cosmic Drag. It diminishes relative velocities for freely moving objects.
Note that this invalidates Newtons first law of motion cosmologically!
The angular momentum also dissipates in the SEC:

61

r2 2

r04 0 2 (1 r 2 ) e 2t /T
r 2 [1 r02 ( r0 0 )2 ] r 40 0 2 e 2 t /T

(II.8)

Here is the angular location and r the radial distance. For velocities much smaller than c we
get:
r 2 (r02 0 ) e t /T (II.9)

For small radial velocities the angular momentum decreases exponentially with time in the SEC.
This invalidates the conservation of angular momentum of classical physics.
However, in the SEC the energy-momentum is still conserved four-dimensionally.
In a recent book: Irreversible Time Physics Dr. Igor Taganov considers a slowing progression
of time and investigates several of its consequences. He finds many aspects in agreement with
the SEC model, for example cosmic drag [Taganov, 2013].

The cosmological redshift

For a fixed location dx=dy=dz=0 the SEC line-element (II.1) gives:
ds et /T dt

(II.10)

Counting time positive in the past by setting -t=tp we find that the scale expansion will cause
past time intervals dtp to seem longer:

ds dt0 e

t p /T

dt p

dt p e p dt0 (II.11)
t /T

Therefore, the redshift z for light received from the past is given by the relation:
f p f0 e
1 z e

t p /T

f 0 / 1 z

(II.12)

t p /T

62

Relation (II.11) also implies that there is time dilation in addition to the redshift, since the photon
arrival frequency also decreases by the factor 1/(1+z). This will be used below when deriving the
apparent luminosity relation for the SEC.

The SEC redshift-distance relation

The distance to a source with redshift z follows directly from the redshift relation above:
1 z e p
t p T ln(1 z )
t /T

(II.13)

d c t p c T ln(1 z ) D ln(1 z )

The distance to the source is d and the Hubble distance is D=cT.

The SEC apparent luminosity relation

Since there are two dimming factors 1/(1+z) the apparent luminosity L of a source of flux
intensity I is given by:

I
I

2
2
4 d (1 z )
4 D (1 z ) ln(1 z )
2

(II.14)

This relation will together with the distance relation above be used in testing the applicability of
the SEC model.

Cosmological tests
Several observational programs have been designed with the main objective of testing cosmological
models. One might think that if the SCMs predictions disagree with these tests it ought to defuse
enthusiasm for the theory. However, this has not been the case. The support is as strong as ever for
the SCM despite its several indisputable observational discrepancies. Instead of rejecting the SCM,

63

its supporters keep adding new speculative (and mythological) features to this model in order to
explain away all of its discrepancies.
Several investigators beginning with Edwin Hubble have found that astronomical observations agree
better with the tired-light redshift model than with the Doppler-like redshift of the SCM. According
to the tired-light model photon energies decrease with distance as in (II.13), but there is only one
dimming factor, 1/(1+z), in (II.14).
In an important paper Dr. Paul LaViolette [LaViolette, 1986] presents clear observational evidence
showing that the tired-light redshiftdistance relation (which is the same as in the SEC) agrees with
cosmological tests without resorting to any of the many speculative evolutionary scenarios needed to
reconcile the observations with the SCM. But, unfortunately, this significant contribution has largely
been ignored. Since 1986, our observational capabilities have improved dramatically with new tools
like the Hubble space telescope and Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), and as we shall see,
it has gradually become clear that the SCM simply does not agree with the observations.
Three standard cosmological tests are discussed in the following; the galaxy number count test, the
angular size test, and the surface brightness test. Also, recent supernovae observations are examined.

The Galaxy Number Count Test

Any candidate cosmological model should be able to predict how the number of galaxies (galaxy
count) we see from the Earth increases with distance. Since the apparent luminosities of galaxies
depend on their distances, there is also a corresponding test for number count as a function of
apparent luminosity. However, several observational programs have repeatedly found that the SCMs
predictions do not agree with observational data.
Figure 5 shows a summary from sixteen different number count programs taken from a paper by
Metcalf et al. [Metcalf et al., 1995]. Galaxies seen in the sky within a spatial square degree and a 0.5
magnitudes luminosity range are counted and displayed as a function of luminosity magnitude. The
SEC theorys prediction has been added to a figure presented in the Metcalf paper. It is clear that the
SCM model fails the test, since its graph lies well below the observations, while the SEC model
agrees well with the observations.

64

Figure 5: Galaxy number count test

The magnitude displayed on the x-axis indicates apparent luminosity of galaxies; the larger the
magnitude is, the dimmer is the galaxy. The magnitude scale is logarithmic and a difference of one in
magnitude corresponds to a factor 2.512 dimmer luminosity. As seen by the human eye, visible stars
have luminosities less than 6. Therefore, galaxies at magnitude 26 are a hundred million times
dimmer than what we can see with the naked eye, which explains why we have to use the Hubble
Space Telescope and charge-coupled devices to see them. The y-axis indicates the number of
galaxies observed within one square degree of the sky and a 0.5 magnitude band.

65

The SEC graph in the plot was obtained using the apparent luminosity relation (II.14).The y-axis on
the graph is the galaxy count, dN, per spatial degree and 0.5 magnitude, dm. This may be
approximated by the differential dN/dm=(dN/dz)/(dm/dz) , which may be obtained from the two
relations:

N ( z ) Const d 3 C1 ln(1 z )

(II.15)

m( z ) 2.5 log(dl2 ) Const 5 log ln(1 z) (1 z ) C2

(II.16)

The galaxy number density is assumed to be constant regardless of distance. The constant C1
merely causes a vertical displacement on the log scale of the y-axis while C2 either disappears in
the differentiation dm/dz or causes horizontal adjustment of the m values on the x-axis.
The SEC model perfectly agrees with the shape of the curve in the figure after adjusting its
location for best fit using log(C1)=5.7 and C2=24. The good fit in the figure was obtained with z
running from z=0.002 at m=10.5 to z=1.0 at m=25.7.
Metcalf et al. attempt to explain the clear discrepancy between the SCMs prediction and the
observations by proposing several evolutionary scenarios, but none of these fits the data as well
as the SEC.
Since the number count data was obtained from 16 different programs this close agreement
between the observational data and the SEC models prediction provides irrefutable evidence in
favor of the SEC model, which is obtained without any fudging factors. The SEC parameter T
does not appear in the shape of the plot since it becomes part of the two constants C1 and C2.

The Angular Size Test

The angular size of a cosmological object, for example a galaxy, may also be used to test
candidate models. The SCM predicts that beyond a certain distance, the angular size will start to
increase with increasing distance rather than decrease; in the SCM there is a minimum in the
graph of angular size versus distance. However, observations do not support this; they show that
the observed angular sizes decrease monotonically with increasing distance.

66

In the SEC the observed angular size of a galaxy with diameter Dg decreases inversely
proportional to the distance:

Dg
d

Dg
D ln(1 z )

(II.17)

Figure 6 is from a paper by Djorgovski and Spinrad [Djorgovski and Spinrad,1981]. The SEC
prediction (II.17) has been added. Clearly the SEC models agreement with the observations is
superior. There is no evidence that the angular size has a minimum value.

Figure 6: Angular size test

67

For small redshifts the distance is proportional to z, which is the lower line in the figure. However
for the SEC model, the distance is proportional to ln(1+z), which is shown as the middle line. The
distance relation for the SCM is more complicated, because it depends on parameters like the mass
density parameter, , and the deceleration constant, q. Two cases for the SCM are shown. By the
SCM model, the angular size should decrease more slowly with distance, which partly is due to the
fact that the maximum distance in the SCM universe is the Hubble distance, which in the SCM occurs
at infinite redshift. However, in the SEC model, the Hubble distance is reached at z=1.7. Clearly, the
data supports the SEC.
The Surface Brightness Test
The surface brightness test is a powerful and robust discriminator between candidate cosmos

theories. Surface Brightness is defined as observed luminosity per surface area of the observed
object. Usually, surface brightness of galaxies is estimated based on apparent luminosity per
observed surface area as measured in squared arc-seconds. The SCM fails this test since its
predicted values do not agree with observations.
In the SEC the surface brightness may be estimated using the two relations:

I
4 d (1 z )2
2

A d

(II.18)

(II.19)

A is the surface area of the source and the angular size of the source.
The surface brightness becomes:
I L 4 d 2 (1 z )2 L 4 (1 z )2
sb

2
A
2
d

(II.20)

SB 2.5 log10 ( sb) Constant

Note that the dependence on the distance to the source has disappeared. This makes the surface
brightness test very robust.

68

Observational results reported by Lubin and Sandage [Lubin and Sandage, 2001] show that the
SEC theory agrees with observed galaxy surface brightness while the SCM does not. The SEC
theorys predictions agree well with the local surface brightness (filled symbols). However, there
is disagreement with the SCM as shown by the heavier, outlined open symbols.
Again, the agreement between observations and the SEC models predictions must be
acknowledged; distant galaxies appear to have the same surface brightness as nearby galaxies.

69

Figure 7: Surface Brightness test

The lower left part of the graph shows the observed surface brightness of galaxies in two clusters at
redshifts close to one (z = 1) as represented by the faint open squares and circles. The x-axis shows
the logarithms of the estimated radii of these galaxies, and the y-axis the surface brightness
magnitudes. Observations of nearby galaxies are represented by the solid curved line. Any candidate
70

cosmological model can be used to predict what the surface brightness of a distant galaxy would
have been if it instead had been located nearby. The solid open symbols represent the SCM models
predictions and the filled symbols the SEC models predictions. The figure shows that the SEC model
predicts surface brightness of distant galaxies that, on the average, are the same as for nearby
galaxies. On the other hand, according to the SCM model, distant galaxies were brighter, a
discrepancy that typically is explained away by evolution.

According to SCM the distance to the source increases with time while it remains constant in the
SEC. Therefore, by the SEC model the surface brightness is proportional to the square of (1+z)
while by the SCM it is the fourth power of (1+z).This difference causes the SCM predictions to lie
above the solid line in figure, which is the calibrated surface brightness baseline estimated from
nearby galaxies. Note that the negative correction in magnitude relative to the observed data for the
SCM is about twice that of the SEC model. Also, the estimated radii for the SEC model are larger
than for the SCM because the distance increases faster with redshift in the SEC.
Accelerating Cosmological Expansion?
A startling recent finding that contradicts the SCM is based on supernovae observations, in particular
a certain type of supernovaethe so-called supernovae 1a (SN 1a).
In this scenario, a carbon-oxygen rich white dwarf star is accreting matter from a companion star.
(The kind of companion star that is best suited to produce type Ia supernovae is hotly debated.) In a
popular setting, so much mass accumulates on the white dwarf that its core reaches a Critical Density
of 2109 g/cm3. This causes uncontrolled fusion of carbon and oxygen, thus detonating the star.
This is believed to be a repeatable process, always resulting in a characteristic radiation signature. I
will not go further into these details more than to say that the duration and shape of the light-curve
from an SN1a is closely related to its light output. The light-curve is a graph of its luminosity as a
function of time that typically could last a month or longer, and its intrinsic luminosity may be
estimated from the shape and duration of the light-curve. Also, the spectrum of an SN1a can be
recognized and distinguished from other types of supernovae.
The longer the duration of the light-curve, the brighter is the supernova, which makes it possible to
use them as standard candles. Since we can measure the apparent luminosity and can use the lightcurve to estimate the emitted, intrinsic luminosity, we can use this information to estimate its distance
71

and test the validity of different cosmos models. Furthermore, since the light output is enormous,
often greater than that of a typical galaxy, and since they flare up and die away over a couple of
months, the SN1a can be detected against the background light (typically a host galaxy) and give
information on geometrical properties of the very distant universe.
SN1a observations have given important but unexpected information. It appears that the
cosmological expansion is now accelerating. An accelerating universe suggests a new force, possibly
implying a cosmological constant as originally proposed by Einstein, and this force could be related
to the missing dark energy predicted by the Inflation theory.

However, this interpretation crucially depends on the redshiftdistance relation of the SCM. As we
shall see there is another, better, interpretation to the SNe Ia observations.

The recently reported SNe Ia observations by the Supernova Cosmology Project [Perlmutter 2003;
Perlmutter et al. 1995, 1997, 1999] and by the High-Z Supernova Search Team [Schmidt et al., 1998]
seemingly confirm that these observations do not agree with the SCM unless the cosmological
expansion accelerates. However, as shown in figure 8 below, the SNe Ia observations agree very well
with the theoretical predictions of the SEC model. This good agreement with the SEC model is
obtained without adjusting any parameters.

72

Figure 8: Supernova 1a observations

The lower dashed line is the prediction of the SCM if the cosmological mass-density equals
Einsteins Critical Density . The upper dashed curve is the SCM with 30 percent mass density and
70 percent cosmological constant, which together makes = 1. This interpretation is currently
favored by the SCM supporters. The solid line is the SEC models prediction.

Note that the SCM models predictions assume that the energy density equals Einsteins Critical
Density for which = 1, which is about twenty times larger than the visible mass-energy density in
the universe. The missing 95 percent is believed to be a combination of dark matter (about 30
percent) and dark energy (about 65 percent) of unknown origin. This is one of the most puzzling
unresolved problems in contemporary cosmology. On the other hand, since the SEC models
predictions agree with observations, no energy is missing. In fact, what in the SCM appears as
73

missing, unexplainable energy, is in the SECenergy contained in spacetime itself; it is induced by the
cosmological scale expansion! This directly follows from the vacuum energy-momentum tensor for
the SEC theory, see further below.
An even more recent paper by Riess et al. [Riess et al, 2004] presents data for 16 newly discovered
SNe Ia, 6 of them observed in the redshift range z >1.25 using the Hubble space telescope. These
new observations suggest that the universe initially went thought a phase with a decelerating
expansion rate, which later was followed by accelerating expansion. Riess et al. modeled the
evolution of the luminosity distance by assuming an initial phase with a decreasing positive
deceleration constant, later followed by an accelerating phase with negative constant. The parameters
of this model as well as the redshift at which the deceleration constant is zero may be estimated from
observational data and be used to model the evolution of the luminosity distance. The transition from
decelerating to accelerating expansion is estimated by Riess et al. to occur at z = 0.46. Our figure 9
(which is figure 4 in Riess et al. with the SEC prediction added) shows the fit to the observations
assuming flat SCM cosmology with M = 0.29 and = 0.71.

74

Figure 9
Explaining the figure: (Caption for figure 9)
Here the redshift is plotted on the x-axis and the distance modulus in magnitude, as predicted by the
cosmos model used, is on the y-axis. The distance modulus is proportional to the logarithm of the
predicted distance to a source expressed as a function its redshift. Again, the agreement with the
SEC prediction is obtained without any adjustments.

The SEC theorys prediction is identical to the curve in figure 4 in the paper by Riess et al.) if the
Hubble distance is D=16.2 billion light-years; there is no difference whatsoever between the two
curves over the whole range from z=0 to z=1.8. The SEC graph for D=14 billion light-years is very
close with a slightly better fit at higher redshifts.
This excellent agreement provides strong support for the SEC theory without requiring additional
speculation on cosmological acceleration or deceleration.

Summarizing the observational evidence:

Three cosmological tests and the recent SNe Ia observations all agree with the SEC model, while the
SCM models predictions disagree with all these observational tests.

New possibilities in a new world

The excellent agreement between the SEC models predictions based on formulas (II.13) and (II.14)
strongly suggests that this new model is correct. It may therefore be used to estimate the absolute flux
in different spectral bands for selected sources based simply on their redshifts and the apparent
luminosities. Moreover, the distance relation would allow the estimation of the absolute size of
selected sources from its measured angular size.
Thus, the two simple formulas for distance and apparent magnitude that only depend on one
parameter, the Hubble time, may open up a new window to the cosmos that allows a more detailed
insight.
The objective of cosmological test programs is to access the validity of various cosmological models.
Clearly the agreement with observations is superior for the SEC model. Although the primary
objective of science is to explain our world sometimes a conflict appears between this objective and
75

the predominant scientific understanding. We have experienced this in the past when trying to make
sense of the planetary motions based on the (erroneous) understanding that the Earth is fixed at the
center of the world, and that the motions of the planets are circular. The Copernican revolution
drastically changed this understanding by not only making the Earth move around the Sun but with
Keplers contribution also making the planetary orbits elliptical.
Now we are facing a similar situation. Our current understanding is that the world is fourdimensional and that the metrical scale of existence is fixed and does not change with time.
However, this understanding is not founded on facts; it is merely presumed and has during the past
centuries formed the basis for our exploration. As was the case in the past we may be facing a
revolution that will forever change our perception of the world.

Dark Energy
We have seen that the SEC line-element yields relations for distances and luminosities that
perfectly agree with our observations. This provides strong support for the new cosmos model.
Additional support comes from evaluating the energy-momentum tensor for the SEC lineelement (II.1).
The assumption that the only contribution to the energy-momentum tensor is the cosmological mass
distribution is questionable since it appears that the universe contains much more energy than what is
contained in baryonic mass and radiation. This has motivated a so far futile search for the missing
energy. However, there is another possibility - perhaps the assumption that the cosmic energy is
dominated by mass is erroneous.
Einsteins General Relativity equation is usually stated in a form, which may be interpreted as
saying that the curving of spacetime (left hand side) is caused by the energy density (right hand
side):

1
R g R K T
2

(II.21)

However, this equation may also be put in the equivalent form:

1
T g T K 1 R
2

(II.22)
76

This relation maybe interpreted as saying that the energy distribution in the universe is caused by
spacetime curvature. The view that the geometry of spacetime defines the energy-momentum
tensor is as valid as the view that the energy-momentum tensor decides the geometry of
spacetime. Both views apply - the energy defines the spacetime geometry and vice versa.
Instead of postulating some energy-momentum tensor and then deriving the corresponding lineelement as traditionally is done in cosmology including the SCM, the SEC model takes the
opposite approach by assuming that a certain spacetime curvature determines the energymomentum tensor for vacuum. This curving of spacetime is generated by the scale expansion,
and the energy momentum tensor for vacuum is the tensor satisfying Einstein's General
Relativity equations given by the SEC line-element. The energy-momentum tensor for vacuum
therefore directly follows from scale equivalence and scale expansion.
Substituting the metrics given by the SEC line-element into Einstein's GR relations we find that
these relations are satisfied with the following Cosmic Energy Tensor CET:

3c 2
8 GT 2
0
CET

c2
8 GT 2

c2
0
8 GT 2

(II.23)

0
c2
8 GT 2

Figure 10: The SEC energy-momentum tensor

The off-diagonal elements all equal zero. The equivalent mass density corresponding to the
energy density component T00 equals Einsteins Critical Density. Therefore, there is no missing
Dark Energy - spacetime itself contains energy equivalent to the critical density making =1.
In the SEC model the tensor CET is the fundamental energy-momentum tensor for the cosmos
it is the energy-momentum tensor of vacuum. It is invariant for all co-expanding observers
regardless of their location or epoch.

77

The equivalent energy corresponding to the Cosmic Energy Tensor is zero since the sum of the
diagonal elements is zero (zero equivalent mass density). This suggests that, although the net
energy content of vacuum is zero, the energy-momentum tensor of vacuum is not identically
equal to zero. The principle of dynamic scale-equivalence implies a Cosmic Energy Tensor with
zero net gravitational energy consisting of non-zero components, which contribute equal
amounts of positive and negative energy.
The spatial expansion corresponds to a Cosmological Constant with negative equivalent energy.
This negative energy is in the SEC balanced by the temporal expansion, which has the effect of
generating a cosmological pressure with positive energy density. Informally, the Cosmic Energy
Tensor may be viewed as consisting of positive Field Pressure with positive energy due to the
temporal acceleration, and with corresponding negative energy and Negative Field Pressure
due to the spatial expansion.
The SEC model resolves the mystery of Dark Energy by showing that it may be caused by using
the wrong cosmological model. There is no Dark Energy in the form of mass density or
radiation.
Dark Energy is created by the cosmological scale expansion!

Dark Matter
Dark Matter may like Dark Energy also be a consequence of using the wrong cosmological
model. Spiral galaxies are mysterious mass accumulations that cannot be explained by standard
physics. Stars in these galaxies move with tangential velocities that appear to be independent of
their radial distances; their rotation curves are flat. However, by standard physics based on
Newtons laws the velocity should decrease roughly proportional to the square root of 1/r with
increasing radial distance.
This discordance could be explained if there was invisible dark matter in each spiral galaxy in
the form of a halo with a total gravitational mass about ten times the visible mass. Moreover,
this halo should then also somehow absorb angular momentums, since the loss of angular
momentums for the stars in a galaxy also is unexplained.
78

The SEC elegantly resolves both these conundrums.

Consider the SEC line-element:

ds 2 e2t /T dt 2 dr 2 r 2 (d 2 sin2 ( ) d 2 )

(II.24)

And apply the coordinate transformation:

t ' T cosh( r / T ) et /T
r ' T sinh( r / T ) et /T

(II.25)

The SEC line-element becomes:

ds 2 dt '2 dr '2 r 2 e2t /T (d 2 sin2 ( ) d 2 )

(II.26)

Here r and t in the last term are implicitly defined by the two relations above. However, using Taylor
expansion:
r' re

t /T

1 r 2

1 higher order terms

6T

(II.27)

The second term is very small even for a galaxy; with r=100kLY it is in the order 10-10. Therefore:
Tatyana: Change the equation below to this.
r ' r et /T

(II.28)

The transformed coordinates therefore with excellent accuracy yield the Minkowskian line-element:
ds 2 dt '2 dr '2 r '2 d 2 sin( )2 d 2

(II.29)

This means that standard physics applies with the transformed coordinates, for example the
conservation of angular momentum:

r '2 ' Const

(II.30)

However, since we have:

dt ' et /T dt

' et /T

(II.31)

We find that the angular velocity accelerates with the SEC coordinates if is constant!
By (II.9) the angular momentum decreases in the SEC:
79

r 2 Const et /T

(II.32)

Relations (II.31 and II.32) imply that the radius must decrease:

r Const et /T

(II.33)

Stars in a galaxy slowly spirals toward the core.

The tangential velocity remains constant:

r Const

(II.34)

Therefore, the cosmological scale expansion explains the shape of spiral galaxies and their flat
rotation curves.
Furthermore, the angular momentum problem is also resolved since in the SEC angular momentums
are steadily dissipated by cosmic drag.
The Dark Matter enigma simply disappears in the SEC!
Figure 11 below shows the shape of a spiral galaxy arm obtained from relations (II.31) and (II.33).
Note that since the radius decreases in proportion to exp(-t/T) we may from the shape of a spiral arm
estimate the time scale for motions of stars in a galaxy. For example, the time for a star to move within
a spiral arm 360 from its outer location in the figure may be estimated from r=r0exp(-t/T). In the
figure we have approximately exp(-t/T)=0.65. With T=14 billion years this would give about t=6
billion years. Meanwhile the galaxy has rotated many complete turns. (The picture illustrates a Milky
Way type galaxy with the outermost region of the arm at r=100kLY=30.7 parsecs. During 6 billion
years the outer region of this galaxy has completed 5 rotations and the inner regions many more.)

80

Figure 11: Modeled spiral galaxy star motion

We also note that Keplers law changes in the SEC. With a central mass M we have:

2 r 3 G M e t /T

GM
(1 z )

(II.35)

Looking back at the earlier epochs of the cosmos it appears as if the gravitational potential has
dissipated over time due to the cosmological scale expansion similar to the loss of energy due to
redshifting. However, Newtons law of gravitation always applies locally where t=0. Thus the
gravitational constant G is not changing, although it from the observed motions of ancient stars in a
galaxy appears as if Newtons law of gravitation is changing with time.
This situation is unfamiliar, but we have to realize that what we see when observing stars in a galaxy
is the perspective from our local spacetime looking back to earlier spacetime geometries with smaller
scales.
As we shall see in what follows (II.35) will also resolve the Neuman-Seeliger gravitational paradox
whereby the gravitational potential in an infinite universe of constant mass density becomes infinite as
well as Olbers Paradox by which the night sky should be as bright as the Sun.
(MOVE)Here it should also be noted that the coordinate transformation (II.25) may be used to
find the ephemerides expressed in the t, r coordinates of the SEC model from the coordinates of
Newtonian model, which uses t and r.

T e t /T t '2 r '2
e r /T

t ' r '
t ' r '

(II.36)

From which:

t T ln (

t '2 r '2
)
T2

t ' r '
r T ln
t ' r '

(II.37)

81

Note that t=0 implies t=T and that c=1 in these expressions.
If the planetary ephemerides were to be computed based on the assumption that Newtons laws
of motion apply, the coordinates for these ephemerides would be given by the primed
coordinates above, which easily may be converted to the SEC coordinates by (II.36) and (II.37).
This might eliminate planetary drifts in relation to optical observations.

The origin of the Moon mystery and the Pioneer Anomaly

It is estimated that the Moon recedes from the Earth by about 3.8 cm/year. If this is true the
Moon must have been in contact with the Earth about 1.5 billion years ago. But we know that is
not the case because rocks on the Moon are of the same age as on the Earth.
However, the estimate 3.8 cm-year is based on celestial mechanics using Newtons laws of
motion and gravitation and is therefore based on the transformed coordinates in relation (II.25).
The relationship between the radial distance to the Moon expressed by these coordinates and the
radial distance of the SEC model is given by (II.27). Differentiating this relation with respect to
time yields:

v ' v et / T
T

(II.36)

This implies that the rate of recession might be overestimated by r/T, which for T=10 billion years is
3.8 cm/year (!) and for T=14 billion year 2.7 cm/year. This shows that the estimate 3.8 cm/year
might be erroneous, and that the Moons recession rate could be much smaller or perhaps nonexistent.
The SEC theory might resolve the enigmatic origin if the Moon. It might have been created at the
same time as the Earth.
The Pioneer Anomaly is another unexplained mystery [Anderson et. al, 2003]. It is a persistent
difference in the space probes velocity estimated by two different methods:
1. Direct measurement of the Doppler shift of a signal received from the space probe.
2. Measurements of the distance by ranging combined with trajectory (ephemeris) modeling to find
the velocity.
82

By the first method the phase shift is directly measured using atomic time, which is the SEC time t in
the relations above. This is then used to measure the velocity assuming that the phase shift is a
Doppler shift.
The second method is based on ephemeris modeling and uses coordinates that are found by fitting
the planetary ephemerides with the assumption that Newtons laws apply. Therefore this method uses
the transformed, primed, coordinates.
The following explanation to the Pioneer Anomaly may be found in [Masreliez, 2005b].
The phase shift of the signal returned by Pioneer 10 is a combination of Doppler shift due to the
outward motion of and the SEC models redshift, which is present even in the solar system. The
normalized cosmological frequency shift is given by:

f f0
t
e t /T 1
f0
T

(II.37)

Here f is the part of the received signal frequency that is due to the cosmological redshift, and f0 is the
by the space probe transmitted frequency. The time t is the signal transmission time between the
probe and the Earth.
The second method first estimates the velocity of the space probe based on ranging data. Then
the frequency shift is estimated as the corresponding Doppler shift. However, instead of the SEC
models time base, t, the estimate is based on t in relation (II.26) resulting in a lower frequency.
Normalized frequency error due to the time base=

t
T

(II.38)

This is the same as the cosmological redshift (II.39), which does not exist when using the (quasi-)
Minkowskian coordinates of (II.29).
However, according to (II.38) these coordinates also over-estimates the outward velocity by v=r/T,
which gives an additional frequency shift error:

v
r
t

c
cT
T

(II.39)

The net result is a discrepancy in the estimated frequency, which explains the Pioneer Anomaly.
Pioneer Anomaly's normalized frequency error

t
T

(II.40)

83

If we believe that the velocity estimate due to the Doppler shift is correct and that the ephemeris
modeling approach also is correct there is an apparent inward acceleration that during the signal
transition time causes a velocity error and a Doppler shift discrepancy:

v
t

c
T
v
c
a
t
T

(II.41)

It appears as if the outward motion is being slowed down by a mysterious inwardly pointing
acceleration c/T. This agrees well with the actually observed Pioneer Anomaly acceleration:

a 8.74 1.33 108 cm / s 2

(II.42)

This corresponds to a Hubble Time, T, in the range: 9.9-13.4 billion years.

Therefore, the SEC theory might also explain the Pioneer Anomaly.

The Pioneer Anomaly could be a direct verification of the SEC model based on measurements in the
solar system.
The Planetary Ephemerides
The ephemerides tabulate planetary positions on the sky as seen from the Earth. The construction of
planetary ephemerides probably is the most ancient task of astronomy beginning with early
observations of so-called wandering stars, that is, the planets.
The Copernican worldview made the epicycles obsolete, and Keplers elliptical orbits dramatically
changed the techniques used for ephemeris construction. With the shape of the orbits now known,
they could be fitted to the observations merely by adjusting a few parameters of an ellipse. Then
Newtons laws of motion and gravitation arrived to further help in determining the ephemerides.
The method in use today is based on Newtons laws (with relativistic adjustments), and takes into
account the combined gravitational influences from different planets and asteroids. The modern
ephemerides generated by Jet Propulsion Laboratory(JPL) use numerical integration where the
motions of all the planets are computed simultaneously, using repeated iterations in order to arrive at
the best fit of the observational data to the theoretical orbits. This is a demanding computational task
using techniques developed and refined over centuries [Standish and Williams, 1990].
84

The parameters determined by this approach of fitting the observations to the theoretical orbits also
include fitting the time-base. In other words, the times at various locations in the orbit are determined
so that the orbits fit the mathematical Newtonian model. Since an accurate temporal reference was
missing in the past the planetary motions were used as a clock with a rate determined by fitting the
observations to orbits determined by Newtons laws. Today JPL uses the same approach; the
assumed mathematical model together with the observations determines the time-base.
This means that the primed coordinates of (II.29) are being used!
Time in Astronomy
The question of a time-base has always been of central importance for astronomy. Traditionally,
positions of the planets were recorded by noting the year, the date, and the time of day of the
observations. Hence early on, the clock used in astronomy was the rotating Earth. This solar time, or
Universal Time (UT) as it is now called, was used from the beginning of modern astronomy until the
middle of the twentieth century when it became clear that UT was no longer accurate enough for
astrometry, because the rotation of the Earth fluctuates due to influences like ocean tides, winds,
inner magma flow, and so on. The motion of the Earth around the Sun became a more accurate
temporal standard, which could be derived from fitting the observations to Newtonian orbits as
predicted by Newtons laws of motion and gravitation. However, this time-base was difficult to use
in practice. For a brief time in the middle of the twentieth century, Ephemeris Time (ET) was the
temporal standard in astronomy until it was replaced by the more easily accessible Atomic Time
(AT) in 1955.
Meanwhile, the method of fitting the ephemerides to observations was steadily being refined by
adding relativistic corrections and by taking into account gravitational influences from the other
planets and from several of the largest asteroids. Also, computer programs that automatically fit the
observations to the Newtonian orbits from which ET could be determined were developed by JPL.
After the introduction of AT in 1955, the continued use of a fitted time-base was challenged by the
suggestion that AT should replace ET.
However, this suggestion was rejected.
There might have been two main reasons for this decision: first, the classical, proven approach was
still in use and a large investment had already been made in developing techniques that
85

simultaneously and automatically fit the time-base to the observations. The use of AT would require
revision of this approach and would obsolete computer programs already developed at great cost
[Standish, 1998]. Second, the fit of planetary observations to Newtonian orbits proved to be
excellent, which seemingly confirmed the equivalence of ET and AT. If this were the case, nothing
would be gained by revising the established methodology.
But, now we know that the primed coordinates allow Newtonian orbits!
In the 1970s, a new program was initiated by which distances between the Earth and the planets
Mercury, Venus, and Mars were measured using radar ranging. If a radar pulse is sent in the direction
of one of these nearby planets, the distance it travels can be determined quite accurately from the
radar echo. The accuracies of these measurements far exceed those of the optical observations, but
with one important caveat: optical observations measure planetary positions relative to the stellar
background while there is no such external reference with the ranging measurements. However, this
obstacle was overcome by combining range measurements with optical and Very Long Baseline
Interferometry (VLBI) measurements. Modern ephemerides published by JPL rely heavily on range
data and VLBI measurements. The ephemeris time-base, which JPL now calls Teph, is still fitted to
the observations, assuming Newtonian orbits. (JPL uses the notation Teph rather than ET since these
two time-bases are slightly different.) Teph is then adjusted to AT as closely as possible with the
assumption that it is proportional to AT [Standish, 1998].
However, lately disturbing and unexplainable discrepancies have surfaced. Optical observations drift
away from the computed ephemerides, which have to be updated at regular intervals by adding new
observational data while discarding older data that are deemed unreliable. The general belief is that
there might be some kind of modeling shortcoming or that optical observations are afflicted by some
kind of systematic error, since it is well-known that the ranging data is superior.
Recently several independent investigators have reported discrepancies between the optical
observations and the planetary ephemerides. Some research [Yao and Smith 1988, 1991, 1993;
Krasinsky et al. 1993; Seidelman et al. 1985, 1986; Kolesnik, 1995, 1996; Poppe et. al. 1999]
indicate that residuals of right ascensions of the Sun show nearly a one arc-second per century (/cy)
negative drift before 1960 and an equivalent positive drift after that date. Yuri Kolesnik reports on
positive drifts of the planets relative to their ephemerides based on optical observations covering
thirty years with atomic time. He uses data from many observatories around the world, which all
independently detect these planetary drifts [Kolesnik, 1995, 1996], [Kolesnik and Masreliez, 2004].
86

Explaining the Planetary Observational Discrepancies

According to the SEC theory, spacetime is curved, not just cosmologically but even locally in the
solar system. Here, the term curved means that the cosmological expansion influences the geometry
of the 4D spacetime, which causes new phenomena. For example, we saw that the SEC model
implies cosmic drag and that the planetary orbits no longer are Newtonian but follow spiral
trajectories toward the Sun.
The excellent agreement between observations and the computed ephemerides found by JPL seems
irrefutable and appears to rule out the SEC theory as well as any problem with the ephemeris
construction process.
Unfortunately, this is not the case.
If we use the primed coordinates of a Minkowskian tangent spacetime instead of the curved
coordinates of the SEC, the planetary orbits will automatically become Newtonian! In other words,
Newtons laws hold true with the right choice of coordinates. And, with this choice of coordinates,
discrepancies from Newtons laws cannot be detected.
It can be shown that the Minkowskian tangential coordinates fit the curved SEC coordinates with a
fractional error of about 1028 in the inner solar system, which is totally negligible. Therefore, when
fitting the planetary ranging observations to Newtonian orbits, the computer program will
automatically select the flat Minkowskian spacetime rather than the SEC curved spacetime, and the
observations will (almost) perfectly fit the orbits. In other words, assuming that the orbits are
Newtonian will with the selected coordinates guarantee that that the observations fit!
However, the fact that the ranging observations fit Newtonian orbits does not mean that the AT and
Teph time scales are proportional.
Arguing that AT must be equal to Teph since the orbits are Newtonian amounts to circular reasoning,
since the presumption that the orbits are Newtonian automatically selects the primed coordinates
(II.29) for which this is true.
But, according to the SEC model, Teph accelerates relative to AT.
Therefore, like was the case with the Pioneer Anomaly, the observational discrepancies with the
planetary ephemerides may be due to the inadvertent use of two different coordinate systems; JPL
uses Teph while the optical observations use AT. Eventually this temporal acceleration discrepancy
87

will become glaringly apparent. A few studies have already discovered it, for example the one by
Oesterwinter and Cohen, who constructed planetary and lunar ephemerides with AT as the time-base
rather than fitting the time-base to the observations [Oesterwinter and Cohen, 1972]. They found that
ET drifts positive relative to AT. Also, using AT two teams, one American and one Russian,
independently found that the planets accelerate based on ranging data [Reasenberg and Shapiro,
1978; Krasinsky et al., 1986].
If these planetary accelerations really exist, one might rightly wonder why they havent already been
acknowledged. The explanation might partly be that the traditional approach of fitting the
ephemerides described above hides the accelerations. Since the ephemerides are fitted mainly by
using ranging data, the secular drift in relation to the stellar background is not detected. However, at
the present time some 40 years after the inception of the ranging program, the planetary accelerations
should become noticeableat least for Mercury, for which the drift is largest. On the other hand,
optical observations, for which over 50 years of observational data are available based on AT, detect
secular acceleration of the planets relative to the stellar background.
However, there is another possible explanation to why the drifts have not been acknowledged:
A man receives only what he is ready to receive The phenomenon or fact that cannot in any
wise be linked with the rest of what he has observed, he does not observe.
H. D. Thoreau
In the belief that the Newtonian model is absolutely correct, the answer to these puzzling
discrepancies is being searched for elsewhere, but in the wrong places. The possibility that the
orbits do not follow Newtons laws is simply unthinkable for the experts.
(MOVED HERE)However, in the SEC where there is cosmic drag Newtons laws no longer
hold. Consequently, as we have seen, the coordinates that make Newtons law valid are not the
right cosmological coordinates to use. In particular, the time-base obtained from fitting the
ephemerides does not agree with atomic time. Here it should also be noted that the coordinate
transformation (II.25) may be used to find the ephemerides expressed in the t, r coordinates of
the SEC model from the coordinates of Newtonian model, which uses t and r.

T e t /T t '2 r '2
e r /T

t ' r '
t ' r '

(II.43)

88

From which:

t T ln (

t '2 r '2
)
T2

t ' r '
r T ln
t ' r '

(II.44)

Note that t=0 implies t=T and that c=1 in these expressions.
If the planetary ephemerides were to be computed based on the classical assumption that
Newtons laws of motion apply, the coordinates for these ephemerides would be given by the
primed coordinates above, which easily may be converted to the SEC coordinates by (II.44).
This might eliminate the planetary drifts for optical observations.

Fossil Coral Evidence

Evidence initially presented by John Wells supports the proposition that the number of days in the
year has changed over time [John Wells, 1963]. The observational material used for this data consists
of fossil corals, brachiopods, and bivalves from the Phanerozoic period and stromatolites and tidal
deposits from the Proterozoic period. The growth characteristics of these organisms change daily and
also with the season of the year, which makes it possible to deduce the number of days in the year
during prehistoric times much like tree rings record the age of a tree. With the assumption that the
length of the year remains constant, one can conclude that the apparent length of day (LOD) was
considerably shorter in the past and that the estimated LOD steadily is growing longer at an
accelerating rate.
Thus, the evidence shows that the rate of change was slower in the distant past than it is today.
This came as a great surprise, since this finding makes it very difficult to explain the change by a
tidal slowing of the Earths rotation. Since the Moon is currently believed to be receding at the rate of
3.8 cm/year due to transfer of angular momentum from the rotating Earth, it must have been much
closer to the Earth in the past. This means that the tidal action should have been greater in the past
and therefore that the LOD should have increased at a faster rather than slower pace in the past.
However, this disagrees with what the coral evidence indicates.

89

The coral data actually reflect the number of days in a year rather than the length of the day.
Therefore, a greater number of days in the year may also mean that the year was longer in the past.
By the SEC theory, the Earth spirals closer to the Sun at an exponentially increasing rate. This
explains not only why the number of days in a year was greater in the past but also why the rate is
changing faster today than it did a long time ago.
Thus, coral evidence further supports the SEC model.

Quasar Distribution
Zhuck et al. analyzed the spatial distribution of quasars based on the distance gauge d = Roln(1 + z),
where Ro is in the order of 1026 meters [Zhuck et al., 2001]. This distance gauge is identical to the
SEC theorys redshiftdistance relation if the Hubble distance is about 11 billion light-years. Zhuck
et al. concluded that the quasar distribution is uniform without any indication of spatial or temporal
variation, which supports the SEC theory by showing that no particular age is associated with the
existence of quasars. This contradicts the SCM claim that quasars were more prevalent during a
certain epoch in the pastthe epoch between 1.9 and 3 billion years after the creation. It appears that
this claim is based on the erroneous distance gauge of the SCM, and exemplifies how a wrong model
could lead to wrong conclusions and to evolutionary speculation.

Pulsar Spin-Downs
Although the cosmic drag effect is quite tiny and very difficult to detect in the planetary motions, it
may be detected and directly measured in the spin-down of pulsars.
Pulsars are believed to be strongly magnetized rotating neutron stars, which emit rotating
electromagnetic radiation beams much like the beams from lighthouses. These beams are detected by
radio telescopes as regular pulse trains with periods indicating the pulsar rotation rates. These pulse
trains are extremely stable, but on average, the rate of rotation decreases very slowly with a timeconstant that agrees with the SEC models prediction.
If the spin-down were caused by cosmic drag, we would expect the period to increase exponentially
due to loss of angular momentum:

p p0 et /T

(II.45)
90

Here p0 is the initial rate at some arbitrary time t=0. This may also be written:
1

dp
T p .
dt

(II.46)

One of my papers [Masreliez, 1999] lists 25 pulsars together with their corresponding spin-down
rates, dp/dt. 17 of them with periods ranging from 1.6 to 196 milliseconds give values of the Hubble
time, T, as given by the relation above, in the range 3 to 25 billion years, corresponding to a factor 8
variation in spite of that their rates of rotation is varying by a factor 122. This strongly suggests that
the pulsar spin-downs have a common origin, with cosmic drag being a possible explanation.
This chapter has presented strong evidence in support of the SEC model obtained from several
different observational finds as well as explanations of hitherto unresolved enigmas. Next we will
address the subject of gravitation.

Is the SEC going to be our new cosmos paradigm?

The reasonable, but perhaps surprising, suggestion that the scale of existence may be a dynamic
cosmological parameter (dimension) leads to a new cosmos model that so far seems to agree with all
astronomical observations. It also appears to resolve a number of issues ranging from the creation of
the universe, to Dark Energy and Dark Matter, to the planetary motions; issues that previously have
remained unresolved.
It should not be any doubt that the SEC is a better cosmos model than the SCM. The only difficulty
seems to be that it would have far-reaching implications. It would invalidate some well establish
knowledge, and some ongoing research. It will therefore be meet with considerable emotional
resistance. This is unfortunate, but we must come to terms with the fact that the universe is what it is
regardless of our human preconceptions and emotions.

I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to
admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they
have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of
their lives.
Leo Tolstoy

91

Chapter III: Gravitation in the SEC

The question of gravitational field energy has been investigated by many including Einstein, who
was puzzled by the fact that according to GR and SCM the gravitational field energy disappears in
vacuum. He felt that the gravitational field energy should be negative and that there must be some
way of expressing it. He therefore invented a pseudo-tensor for this purpose. However, this tensor
does not really belong in GR since it does not transform like an ordinary tensor. Other investigators
have since proposed different gravitational pseudo-tensors, but recent investigation has shown that all
these pseudo-tensors can be made to disappear with special choices of coordinates [Neto and
Trajtenberg, 2000]. Therefore, these pseudo-tensors are nothing but smoke and mirrors; they do not
have any physical meaning.
Although there can be no vacuum energy or gravitational field energy in the SCM, we know that the
cosmological vacuum contains Dark Energy and therefore that our understanding lacks something
very important. The SEC theory resolves these issues in a simple and straightforward manner. The
problem can be traced all the way back to Galileos assumption that relative velocities for freely
moving objects will not diminish over time. This became Newtons first law of motion, which in the
context of special relativity must imply that inertial frames are equivalent and that there is no
cosmological reference frame. But in the SEC, there is cosmic drag, which violates Newtons first
law and defines an absolute cosmological reference frame toward which all free motion converges.
The material summarized in this section may be found in [Masreliez, 2004c].

Karl Schwarzschilds Solution

In standard physics, there is an exact solution to Einsteins GR equations, provided that all
components of the energy-momentum tensor disappear. This solution was discovered by Karl
Schwarzschild and published in 1916 [Schwarzschild K., 1916], the year of his premature death at
the age of 42. His solution is remarkably simple and is the basis for the belief that black holes exist, a
belief that unfortunately over the years has been accepted as a proven fact.

92

But, black holes are purely hypothetical objects, based on the assumption that the energy-momentum
tensor of GR disappears and that there is no cosmological scale-expansion. If this is not the case and
there is vacuum energy induced by the scale-expansion, black holes do not exist, even theoretically.
Schwarzschilds solution, as well as Newtons law of gravitation, implies that in the far field far
away from gravitating matter, the gravitational potential takes the following well-known form as a
function of radial distance:

P(r )

Gm
r

(III.1)
.

As usual, G is the gravitational constant and m the gravitating mass.

Since the days of Newton, this relation has been puzzling since it implies that the net gravitational
potential from all the matter in a homogenous infinite universe must be infinitely large and that the
gravitational force acting on any particle (pulling it in all directions) is also infinitely large (this is
known as Neumann-Seeliger gravitational paradox). Of course, this is quite disconcerting. Over the
years, many have attempted to resolve this puzzle. Perhaps there is a limited amount of matter in the
universe? Perhaps the observable cosmos is only an island in empty space?
Some people have proposed a modified potential that diminishes its action at large distances. The
most well-known is probably the Yukawa potential with an exponential roll-off factor:

P(r )

G m r / R
e
r

(III.2)
.

This attenuates the potential at some large distance R.

But, (III.2) is just (II.35) with r=ct and R=D=cT!
Therefore, the reach of gravitational influences dissipates at the Hubble distance resolving the
Neumann-Seeliger Paradox (see further below).
There is another already mentioned strange property of Schwarzschilds solution: it assumes that the
energy-momentum tensor in vacuum disappears everywhere, even very close to gravitating matter.
This means that the cosmological vacuum does not contain gravitational energy, which conflicts with
the conclusion based on other considerations that the gravitational field energy ought to be negative.
The SEC model resolves even this issue.

93

The SEC Solution

If black holes do not exist, we may wonder what happens during gravitational collapse.
However, in the SEC total gravitational collapse is prevented by the cosmological scale-expansion.
In order to understand how this might be possible, we will assume that the line-element of GR, which
models a spherically symmetric field, includes two modifications compared to the corresponding
SCM line-element:

There is cosmological scale-expansion acting on all four metrics of spacetime.

The energy-momentum tensor for cosmological vacuum no longer disappears but equals the
cosmic energy tensor of the SEC model.

We then find that an exact solution to the GR equations no longer exists! There is an approximate
solution similar to the Schwarzschild solution, but it does not hold for very small and very large
distances [Masreliez, 2004c]. How should we interpret this?
I think it tells us that the presence of a mass accumulation influences the energy-momentum tensor in
the vicinity of matter.
Thus, the presence of matter changes the vacuum energy density.
Moreover, we can guess how the energy-momentum ought to change since we know that the solution
should be almost exactly the same as the Schwarzschild solution at intermediate distances. At large
distances we then find that the gravitational potential effectively disappears close to the Hubble
distance; regions even farther away do not influence us gravitationally. Furthermore, assuming
constant cosmological mass density, the gravitational potential from all matter in the universe is
finite, and the total gravitational field energy from a point mass m is negative; it equals mc2.
Not only does the SEC model limit the range of gravitation, but the gravitational field energy also
equals that of gravitating matter, but with the opposite sign. Thus the presence of matter does not
contribute to the net cosmological energy. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the cosmos
contains no net energy.
The details of this development may be found in [Masreliez, 2004c].

The SEC near-field solution

In the SEC, black hole formation is prevented by the scale-expansion. Since the vacuum energymomentum tensor does not disappear, Schwarzschilds exterior solution, which implies the
94

possibility of black holes, no longer exists. We can show this by applying GR in a rather technical
discussion, which is beyond the scope of this book. The interested reader might find the details of
this development in my paper [Masreliez, 2004c]. However, I will summarize the main conclusions
here.
In the SCM, the temporal metric of Schwarzschilds solution becomes zero and the radial metric
becomes infinite at a radial distance called the event horizon. This is the distance that signifies the
radius of a black hole, its event horizon. Since the temporal metric goes to zero, it means that the
progression of time stops at the event horizon. These are well-known aspects of a black hole.
When approaching the event horizon, the solution for the SEC line-element closely follows the same
trend, but with the difference that gravitational field energy density becomes sharply negative close
to the event horizon. This suggests that inward motion is prevented since negative energy will cause
gravitational repulsion rather than attraction.
It is possible to find an approximation to the SEC solution that holds very close to the event horizon
and use this solution to investigate the trajectory of a particle falling inward. We find that it never
reaches the event horizon and therefore that a black hole cannot form. Technically, the event horizon
becomes a singularity in the SEC; it is a forbidden radial distance at which matter cannot exist. By
the SCM an object may fall straight through the event horizon and be swallowed by a Black Hole,
but this cannot happen in the SEC.

The Neumann-Seeliger and Olbers paradoxes

In an infinite cosmos with constant matter density the gravitational potential will by Newtons law of
gravitation become infinite. Integrating the contribution from matter at constant mass density m over
increasing radii we get:

G m
4 r 2dr
r
0

(III.3)

However, in the SEC the gravitation potential decreases with time and distance according to (II.35).
Using the redshift-distance formula we get:

95

4 D ln(1 z ) Ddz
G m 4 r 2
G m
P

dr

r (1 z )
D ln(1 z )
(1 z )
(1 z )
0
0

4 G m D ln(1 z ) D
dz 4 G m D 2
0
(1 z ) 2

(III.4)

In the SEC the gravitational potential from all matter in the cosmos is finite.
Neumann-Seeligers Paradox disappears.
By Olbers Paradox the total light received from all sources with average flux I and number density
n is infinite:

I n
4 r 2dr
2
4 r
0

(III.5)

But, in the SEC this becomes:

I n
I n r 2 Ddz 1

I n D (III.6)
4 r 2 (1 z )2
(1 z )
2
0

Olbers Paradox disappears.

The SEC resolves gravitational puzzles
It is intriguing that the tiny vacuum energy density and the very slow scale-expansion of the SEC
theory limit gravitational action at cosmological distances and prevent black hole formation at very
small distances. Two main enigmas with the current theory of gravitation magically disappear.
Also, the presence of a cosmological reference frame allows the existence of negative gravitational
field energy mc2 that balances the gravitational matter energy [Masreliez, 2004c].
Epistemological implications
I have presented these implications of the SEC theory with some trepidation, realizing that they may
be hard to digest, in particular for the reader well versed in current physics. But I have found it
impossible to present this material in a piecemeal way without leaving too many unanswered
questions.

96

It is tempting to ignore the SEC model altogether rather than having to face the possibility that the
SCM falls short, but unfortunately the SEC model cannot be accommodated merely by making
adjustments; it implies a major revision of our worldview and of physics.
For creatures of the ocean their water-world encompasses all existence. They live oblivious of the
world above water, not to talk about the cosmos beyond. Similarly we humans may be oblivious of
additional dimensions of existence of which the metrical scale of spacetime might be the most
important. We may find that this additional dimension may explain many aspects of our existence
that in the past have been mysterious and unexplainable.

Chapter IV: New physics of the SEC model

We have seen how the SEC model provides simple and elegant resolutions to several observational
discrepancies both at cosmological distances and locally in our solar system. Furthermore, the SEC
resolves several cosmological enigmas.
But these advantages come at a cost: they imply that currently accepted epistemology will have to be
revised, starting with Newtons first law of motion. This may become a major obstacle for the SEC
theorys general acceptance by the scientific community, since it is difficult to abandon concepts
firmly imbedded in the very foundation of physics. But regardless of this, if the theory turns out to
have merit, it should eventually prevail.
There are a number of further implications that the concepts of scale-equivalence and a dynamic
space time scale would have - implications that could change physics.

The progression of time

A possible solution to the puzzle of the progression of time is one of the most important and (to me
personally) satisfying aspects of the new theory.
We have always believed that time progresses at the same continuous pace so that each second is as
long as the previous second. However, this might not be the case; the duration of a second could
change together with the scale-expansion. Since scale-expansion means that the temporal metric
expands together with the spatial metrics, the duration of time intervals like a second could increase
with time. However, as I have argued earlier, it is inconceivable that the duration of a second can

97

change continuously relative to itself. The progression of time relates an earlier time interval to a
later time interval via a relative scale adjustment.
Therefore, the progression of time must occur in discrete steps if modeled by the four dimensions of
spacetime.
We owe (or should I say we may blame) the currently accepted way of dealing with motion to
Newton and Leibniz, who both claimed they had invented differential calculus. In modeling motion,
we use a mathematical trick by which we treat motion as a limit of ever-shortening intervals of length
and time. In mathematical terms we form the time derivative. Since its invention, differential calculus
has become the workhorse of science.
Our indiscriminate use of differential calculus and differential geometry may explain the current
crisis in physics and cosmology.
It appears that Zeno with his paradoxes made a fundamentally important point: we have to be very
careful when applying differential methods, since physical processes may exist that cannot be
modeled by differential calculus. We already suspect that this might be the case in quantum
mechanics, but we have not yet fully grasped and squarely faced all of its implications.
GR is based on differential geometry in four-dimensional continuous manifolds. In a continuous
manifold locations in space and time change smoothly. No matter how close two points are located,
there are points that are even closer, which makes the differential limiting process work. Ironically,
although the 4D spacetime manifold modeled by GR is continuous, the progression of time might not
be continuous but take place via a discontinuous stepwise process.
Processes might not be continuous at the atomic-particle level for an excellent reason. By the SEC
theory, the universe expands by increasing the scale of spacetime, and we saw that this must be a
stepwise process. After each tiny scale-expansion increment, all four metrics have expanded by the
same tiny scale-factor, but the universe always still remains the same relative to its inhabitants, since
universes of different scales are equivalent. The DIST cycle illustrated in Figure 12 is a (very
simplified) representation of the cosmological expansion cycle.

98

Figure 12: The Discrete Incremental Scale Transition cycle

The cycle in the figure illustrates the SEC expansion process. It suggests stepwise scale-expansion
that preserves symmetry between the four spacetime metrics.
This expansion mode might be the essence of the progression of time.
During the continuous part of the short SEC expansion cycle, the metrics expand while keeping
the increment ds of GR the same. After a short time interval t, the scale has increased by the
factor exp(2t/T). Due to scale-equivalence, the universe is at this point in the cycle scaleequivalent to what it was at the beginning of the cycle. The universe stepwise transits into a new
and slightly larger scale while decreasing the pace of proper time as modeled by GR. This
cycle, which makes time progress, repeatedly returns to its beginning.
This last step can be addressed in GR by changing the reference increment. This process extends
GR to also cover discrete scale transformation, which retains the original line-element. In other
words, it extends GR to handle the additional scale dimension.
The possibility that the pace of proper time might change with the cosmological expansion is not
covered by standard GR.
You may think of the scale-expansion process as being similar to a child growing out of her clothes.
Old clothes, when outgrown, are replaced by new ones on a regular basis. Similarly, the universe
changes the pace of proper time incrementally to fit the expanding space. The cosmos remains the
same, and time always appears to progress at the same pace as experienced by us as inhabitants. The
fact that the scale of spacetime is dynamic, and changes all the time, has remained hidden to us. It is
99

understandable if you at first have problems with this novel expansion mode, since it is beyond of
common experience as well as known physics.
The SEC expansion cycle is reminiscent of a movie by which a sequence of two-dimensional images
gives the impression of motion. In the SEC motion results from a sequence of four-dimensional
geometries that each separately may be modeled by GR. However, the transition process between
these 4D geometries, which might be the essence of the progression of time, cannot by modeled in
four dimensions.
It is interesting to note a similar idea was introduced by Dr. John Wheeler in his
Geometrodynamics by which the cosmological evolution in time is treated as a sequence of 3D
geometries [Wheeler, 1963].
An improved mathematical representation will likely be found in the future, possibly based on a fivedimensional application of GR (see below).
The SEC cycle shown in the figure is a new kind of physical process. It will be shown that this
process not only may model the SEC expansion, but also might close the gap the between Quantum
Mechanics (QM) and GR. It may also help explain the phenomenon of Inertia.

Modeling the SEC as geodesic motion in five dimensions

By the SEC model the scale of spacetime becomes a new dynamic degree of freedom, which also
may be modeled by five-dimensional application of GR.
One possibility is the 5D hyperspace line-element (with c=1):
ds 2 u 2 (dt 2 dx 2 dy 2 dz 2 ) T du

(IV.1)

The first term models scale-equivalent 4D spacetime with u being the scale, while the second models
the scale expansion step.
We may in this five-dimensional hyperspace consider a null-geodesic given by ds=0. If an observer
is fixed in her local 4D frame we have dx=dy=dz=0 and therefore on this 5D null-geodesic:

u 2dt 2 T 2du 2
u e t /T

(IV.2)

The corresponding 4D part of the line-element is:

100

ds 2 e2t /T (dt 2 dx 2 dy 2 dz 2 )

(IV.3)

The SEC line-element may be associated with motion on a 5D null-geodesic! This is consistent with
the right hand side of the DIST cycle where the scale expansion is modeled as a function of time in
4D GR. Thus, the positive sign may correspond to the segment of the DIST loop where GR applies.
Therefore, we may consider the SEC model as representing motion on a null-geodesic in 5D
hyperspace.
We also find that:
dt T

du
u

(IV.4)

In other words, cosmological scale-expansion in five dimensions provides an ontological explanation

to the progression of time. The Hubble Time T becomes a cosmological constant that relates the
cosmological scale u to time t similar to how the speed of light c relates time t to space (x, y, z) in
the 4D spacetime.
Thus geodesic motion of 4D spacetime in the 5D hyperspace could explain the cosmos as it is
observed and experienced. Motion in general takes place in the metrical scale as well as in the four
spacetime dimensions.
It is interesting to further investigate geodesic motion of the temporal coordinate in this
hyperspace when ds 0. With the index 4 corresponding to the dimension u the geodesic
equation is:

d 2t
dt du
dt du
2 dt du
004
040

2
ds
ds ds
ds ds
u ds ds

004 040

1
u

(IV.5)

(IV.6)

This may be integrated:

101

ln(dt / ds ) ln(u 2 ) ln(C ) ln(Cu 2 )

(IV.7)
ds
C u2
dt
The time NOW is t=0, and we may set ds=dt and u=1 so that constant of integration is C=1.
From the line-element (IV.1) we get:
2

ds
2
2
2 du
u (1 v ) T
dt
dt

(IV.8)

Consider the stationary case v=0 corresponding to motion in time only. From (IV.7) and (IV.8)
we get:

du
u u T
dt
du
dt

2
T
u 1 u
4

(IV.9)

Changing in integration variable:

u 1 w2

(IV.10)

Inserting this in (IV.9) we get:

dw
dt

2
1 w
T

(IV.11)

This may be integrated selecting w>0:

t
1 w
eT
1 w

(IV.12)

The cosmological redshift satisfies:

z 1 e

t
T

(IV.13)

Therefore we note that:

102

1 w
1 z
1 w

(IV.14)

This may be compared to the relativistic Doppler redshift, z, which with c=1 for a receding
source in space at velocity v is:

1 v
1 z (IV.15)
1 v
The cosmological redshift is related to the integration variable w as if it were caused by outward
motion in space at velocity w instead of being caused by motion in scale via the cosmological
scale-expansion.
This development suggests that:
1. The cosmological redshift may directly result from geodesic motion in a five-dimensional
hyperspace with the metrical scale as the fifth dimension. We might say that an object at
rest in an inertial Minkowskian frame of 4D spacetime is freely falling on a geodesic in
the 5D hyperspace.
2. The cosmological redshift gives the erroneous impression that a radiating source is
receding in space, and that the redshift is due to a Doppler shift.
3. The integration parameter w may be seen as corresponding to inertial motion in scale
with decreasing scale when moving back in time with w=1 at u=0. The inertial scale
factor corresponding to this motion would then be given by relation (IV.10).
4. This explains the origin of the cosmological scale expansion as being the most natural
kind of motion for our 4D spacetime in the 5D hyperspace of (IV.I).
This demonstrates that geodesic motion of 4D spacetime in 5D hyperspace could explain cosmos
as observed and experienced, and that there is symmetry between motion in scale and in space.
Motion in general takes place in the metrical scale as well as in the four spacetime dimensions.
And, as we shall see, the scale changes correspondingly for relative motion in space.
The scale of four-dimensional spacetime is an active cosmological degree of freedom that makes
the world fundamentally five-dimensional. This suggests that the scale should be taken into
account when modeling any kind of motion whether in space or time.
103

Theodor Kaluza showed that Maxwells equations may be derived from a five-dimensional version
of GR if the four off-diagonal metrical components of the fifth dimension in the metric tensor
correspond to the electromagnetic vector potential [Kaluza, 1921]. However, there is also a scalar
component of the fifth dimension of unknown origin, which in the context of the SEC could model
be the oscillating spacetime scale as envisioned by Oskar Klein [Klein, 1926]. This would be
consistent with Kleins interpretation of the fifth dimension as being curled up and modeling
quantum properties.
This also suggests that the electromagnetic field might be a particular mode of metrical oscillation in
5D hyperspace.

Universal perpetual motion

We may naively visualize the effect of a slowing progression of time by considering an object in
motion. If our clock were to slow down and the second become longer an object would move farther
in a given time interval, which we would interpret as a higher velocity. Thus, slowing down the pace
of our reference clock seemingly generates kinetic energy. Similarly, slowing the progression of time
elevates temperatures since the molecules in a gas or liquid move faster. In all instances, a slowing
pace of time generates energy. This is illustrated in the figure.

Figure 13: Illustrating energy induced by the scale expansion

104

However, this illustration does not take into account the expanding space, which dilutes the
cosmological energy density. In the SEC, the energy density lost due to the expanding space exactly
matches the energy generated by the expanding time, and the net cosmological energy is always zero.
This balance eternally sustains the SEC universe as an open thermodynamic system that is
continually in motion. It implies new physics that perhaps should not be totally unexpected. Since all
epochs are equivalent in the SEC it must imply the conservation of the cosmological energy density.
Technically the energy of the four-dimensional energy momentum tensor is conserved.
Thus, the SEC is energized by the scale-expansion, and as we saw, its vacuum energy-momentum
tensor (of GR) contains cancelling positive and negative components. The universe is perpetually in a
state of non-equilibrium, where energy generated by the slowing progression of time flows to the
expanding space in a process that sustains all existence.
To further illustrate this new process we may think of keeping a slowly leaking balloon inflated by
repeated puffs of air. Similarly the SEC balloon is kept inflated by the incrementally increasing
temporal metric that slows the pace of time while the expanding space causes cosmological energy to
slowly leak away, for example via redshifted electromagnetic radiation.

Thermodynamics in the SEC

The standard cosmological model is facing a troublesome enigma with its cosmological entropy. The
closed universe of the SCM requires that the entropy should always increase, bringing with it a
steadily increasing cosmological disorder. But, rather than becoming more and more disordered, it
appears that the universe of today is much more ordered than what it would have been just after the
Big Bang.
If the SEC model is correct, the energy of all matter could be sustained via oscillating modulations of
the spacetime metrics, which would imply that the cosmological scale-expansion is the origin of all
energy in the universe. The radiating energy from suns and other sources is dissipated via the
redshift. The cosmos is in thermal equilibrium, which explains the cosmic microwave background
[Masreliez, 1999].

105

This means that the cosmos is a thermodynamically open system in which the net entropy may
forever remain constant.

The zero-point vacuum energy enigma

The zero-point energy (ZPE) density of the cosmological vacuum is yet another unresolved problem
with the SCM. The ZPE is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system
can have; it is the energy of its ground state. All quantum mechanical systems (particles) undergo
fluctuations even in their ground states at zero absolute temperature, and have associated zero-point
energies, as a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The net vacuum energy is the combined zero-point energy of all fields in space. The problem with
the SCM is that the predicted ZPE is enormously large when adding the contributions from all
possible oscillatory frequencies. Based on quantum mechanics it is estimated that the ZPE density is
a factor 10110 larger than the energy density at the center of the Sun! In the SCM, this is an
unexplainable embarrassment. Clearly this shows that we do not really understand the physics of the
ZPE.
On the other hand, if the vacuum oscillations are in the scale of spacetime rather than in the 4D
coordinate space, the net contribution from each mode of oscillation will disappear because the
corresponding energy-momentum tensor takes the same form as the cosmic energy tensor; its
diagonal components sum to zero and the net contribution for each oscillatory mode disappears.
In the SEC the zero-point vacuum energy disappears!
We may have failed to realize that the ground state of quantum theory might refer to oscillations in
the metrical scale rather than to waves in 4D spacetime. As we shall see in what follows this also
agrees with the finding that the domain of the quantum mechanical wave-functions is the metrical
scale of spacetime rather than the four coordinate dimensions of space and time.

The SEC violates the laws of physics

106

From the discussion above we may surmise that the SEC model violates Newtons laws of motion as
well as the laws of thermodynamics. The main reason is that these laws do not take into account the
dynamic scale dimension, which may play a crucially important role in our existence by making time
progress. This omission explains why the progression of time has been mysterious. And, when taking
into account this new dimension it should not come as a surprise that the cosmological symmetry of
scale-equivalence dominates over, and overrides, the classical symmetries of conservation of
momentum and energy.
We have seen that dynamic scale-equivalence of the SEC model allows perpetual existence in a selfsustaining world. By Parmenides line of reasoning creation of the world from nothingness is
impossible, and therefore the SEC model is to prefer, which also means that the energy needed to
sustain the world should be a natural and integral aspect of existence. The old view of energy as
being an outside agent supplied to, or consumed by, a closed universe like the SCM is replaced by a
perpetually self sustaining cosmos in which the scale-expansion induces positive and negative energy
without any net energy.
If we postulate perpetual existence of a world with never changing physical laws in which all epochs
are geometrically identical we will likely end up with something like the SEC model. And, if we do
this we will have to accept that Newtons laws of motion and gravitation, the laws of
thermodynamics, and also Einsteins two relativity theories must be revised.
This would of course have major impacts on physics. However we must accept that the world is what
it is and there is no escape from the fact that revisions of the current laws of physics may become
necessary.
This should be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat.

Chapter V: Quantum Mechanics and its link to General Relativity

There are many comments expressing confusion with quantum theory, for example quotes by Albert
Einstein,
God does not play dice!
And:
107

The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks.
Albert Einstein

There is another one by Richard Feynman in his book QED, The Strange Theory of Light and
Matter, Princeton University Press, (1985):
I have pointed out these things because the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder
it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So, theoretical
physics has given up on that.
Richard Feynman
Not many would admit to not understanding quantum mechanics, but Feynmans stature as a famous
Nobel laureate allowed him to do it. It speaks volumes about our current state of knowledge; we
simply do not understand our quantum world.
As we shall see, Quantum Theory (QT) might be explained by the additional scale-dimension and the
DIST process, a fact that perhaps may be seen as a direct confirmation of the new physics presented
in this monograph. The generalization of GR implied by the DIST process allows the derivation of
QT from GR! This would bridge the gap between GR and QT and thus resolve perhaps the greatest
mystery of modern physics.

An ontological Hint
Let us take a second look at the cyclic DIST process that illustrates the cosmological scale-expansion
cycle. This might very well be a simplified picture, since it is conceivable that the cosmological
expansion better could be modeled by a five-dimensional version of GR. However, the DIST loop
suggests that the metrical scale of everything in the cosmos oscillates relative to a co-expanding
observer, which suggests that there might be some kind of connection between the cosmological
scale-expansion and QT, since QT is dealing with waves and discrete processes.
This might actually be the case: The oscillating scale-expansion may explain our quantum world!
By the cosmological DIST cycle, the scale expands by a tiny fraction during each cycle. At the end
of each cycle of the DIST loop, spacetime jumps into a new, slightly larger scale via a discrete
scale transition. According to GR the reference increment ds in GR remains constant everywhere.
However, as experienced by an inhabitant of the universe, who expands together with spacetime, the
108

discrete scale transition in effect resets the relative scale of spacetime. Therefore, the scale appears to
oscillate at extremely high frequencies. This oscillation cannot be directly observed because the
amplitude, superposed on the scale, is extremely small and the frequency extremely high. However,
this might be what causes the familiar vacuum fluctuations, and it might be the domain where QT is
active. If you wonder why Nature is quantum mechanical it might be because of the cosmological
scale-expansion!
The technical details of this development may be found in Appendix III: Deriving Quantum
Mechanics from General Relativity.

The de Broglie Matter-Wave

Consider a small spatial region (particle) with a metrical scale oscillating at a very high frequency.
We can model this in GR by a Minkowskian line-element with oscillating metrics. To model motion,
we apply the Lorentz transformation (LT) or the Voigt transformation (VT). We then find that
motion will cause spatial modulation of the phase of the scale-oscillation. This is a relativistic
consequence of the term -xv/c2 in the temporal transformation. If the scale-oscillation, which is
associated with the particle, matches its Compton frequency, we recognize this phase modulation of
the scale as being identical to the de Broglie matter-wave!
The QM waves may therefore be real physical modulations in the metrical scale of spacetime!
The Compton frequency, f, is related to the energy, E, of a particle by the relationship
E h f .

Here h is Plancks constant. This simple but important observation suggests that:
Scale-oscillation of small amplitudes at the Compton frequency might accompany and sustain all
particles.
The deBroglie matter-wave might appear as a modulation of the Compton oscillation of the scale. It
is a relativistic effect, which is a direct consequence of a particles motion.
Thus, the wave and particle aspects of QT are inseparablethey are two sides of the same coin.
This would immediately explain the wave-particle duality. These simple but important observations
reveal a great deal about the nature of QT.

109

This suggests an ontological explanation: The QT wave-function represents modulation of a

particles Compton oscillation in the scale of spacetime. By this interpretation, the quantum wave is
not a separate, independent entity but represents modulation of already existing particle-oscillation.
Like a radio signal is modulated to transmit speech and music, the Compton oscillation is modulated
by the QT wave-function. The complex nature of the wave-function now finds its explanation; it
expresses amplitude and phase modulation of the Compton carrier wave. This suggests that the
essence of QT is oscillation in the scale of spacetime and that the QT wave-functions are real
physical entities, not just probabilistic functions. The modulation of spacetime is primary; Borns
probability interpretation is secondary.
This would also discredit the Copenhagen interpretation with its Complementarity Principle by
providing a simple and direct physical explanation to QT. People who over the years have felt that
something is missing in the way QT is to be understood would be right. Thus, Einstein might have
been right and Bohr wrong after all! However, ironically this should not be blamed solely on Bohr
and the Copenhagen School because it could also be due to shortcomings of GR, which cannot
model the DIST process or the progression of time. And, QM may be intimately connected with both
the missing scale dimension and the progression of time. Both GR and QM will have to be modified
before reconciliation becomes possible.
According to the Copenhagen School, the wave-functions represent particles without giving any
ontological explanation. Motion of a particle is modeled based on the corresponding wave-function.
By this approach, QT wave-functions are interpreted as being the primary observable entities while
the particles become secondary. Thus, quantum mechanics deals with wave-functions rather than
with particles. This is like learning the properties of an object from the behaviour of its shadow. Like
the shadow, the wave-function depends on the surrounding geometry and might give strange
interpretations if one thinks the shadow is actually the object, in particular if the object casts several
different shadows, which in QT would correspond to different branches of the wave-function.
The new interpretation suggests that particles could be standing wave oscillations in the metrics of
spacetime sustained by the cosmological scale-expansion. Oscillation of the metrics may generate
both positive and negative energy in GR, and it is possible that the Compton oscillation generates a
particles rest mass energy. In this case, matter (particles) would be nothing but oscillating spacetime
energy.
Lets see if this rather speculative conjecture finds additional support!
110

The Origin of Mass?

The currently accepted model of particle physics proposes that all particle masses are induced via a
hypothetical fundamental particle called the Higgs boson.
In the SEC energy is steadily being induced by the expanding scale of space and time. Whether the
resulting oscillating scalar field is the Higgs field remains to be seen. It may easily be shown that an
oscillating scale will induce spacetime energy with an energy-momentum tensor of the same form as
the Cosmic Energy Tensor of the SEC theory. Like this CET it has cancelling positive and negative
contributions. This might be the Zero Point Energy of vacuum.
However, it is possible that all four spacetime metrics do not oscillate in exactly the same way but
exhibit internal phase differences and overtones.
This could be the ultimate origin of mass energy.
This means that the cosmological scale-expansion could be the ultimate energy source, not only for
the Dark Energy, but also for all matter-energy. And, as already mentioned, this matter-energy is
exactly balanced by the negative energy of the corresponding gravitational field; the net energy of the
universe disappears.
However, if oscillating spacetime metrics is the ultimate origin of matter energy it is not yet known
exactly how fundamental particles may be formed from spacetime energy induced by the
cosmological expansion.
The de BroglieBohm Pilot-wave
Over the years since the discovery of the matter-wave, several attempts have been made to find an
ontological interpretation for QT. Louis de Broglie suggested at the Solvay conference in 1927 that a
particle might be guided by a pilot-wave directly related to the QT wave-function. At this meeting
Wolfgang Pauli challenged him to explain what happens to his pilot-wave at the scattering of a
particle, that is, when a particle hits an object and scatters away. This is usually modeled as a single
QT wave-function that splits up into a superposition of several different components representing
different scattering outcomes. But, a single pilot-wave corresponding to this superposed wavefunction cannot explain the different possible trajectories taken by the scattered particle, since it
would mean that the particle had to follow several different trajectories at the same time. De Broglie
did not have a good answer.
111

Later, in the 1950s, David Bohm independently revived de Broglies idea [Bohm, 1952]; [Bohm and
Vigier, 1954]. He attempted to counter this scattering challenge by speculating that de-coherence
quickly occurs between the different branches of the scattered wave-function and that the scattered
particle selects only one of the possible branches, leaving the other branches empty. However, he did
not clarify the reason for this de-coherence. (The explanation may be found in what follows.)
Bohms explanation should be compared to how QT is being taught today. The different branches of
the wave-function are thought to represent potentialities; these branches represent different
possibilities that the particle will follow a particular branch. After scattering, but before an
observation is made, the particle is believed to be hovering in all different branches
simultaneously; the act of observation collapses the wave-function into one of the possible
branches. This collapse of the wave-function is a very strange mental move, which has been
discussed and debated at length over the years. It is central to current QT epistemology and has been
the subject of many articles and much speculation. It is undoubtedly the most unsatisfactory aspect of
the Copenhagen interpretation; it is something unexplainable and mysterious.
There might be another interpretation.
The Compton carrier frequency is proportional to the relativistic energy of the particle. This energy,
which also includes its kinetic energy, changes with the particles velocity, which means that the
relativistic Compton frequency also changes with the velocity. In scattering, the particle bounces off
in a different direction and its velocity might change. The Compton carrier frequency then shifts
slightly and may therefore select a different branch of the QT wave-function. By this mechanism, the
different branches of the wave-function will become de-correlated, just as Bohm guessed, due to
their different Compton frequencies. Just like radio signals in different bands do not interfere, the
branches of the wave-function do not interfere because their carrier waves differ. As soon as we
realize that the QT wave-functions do not have an independent existence but merely modulate the
Compton carrier wave, we begin to understand what is happening. Possible trajectories appear as
different branches, one for each Compton frequency. After scattering, the particle will take one of
these possible trajectories corresponding to its energy. This eliminates the troublesome and
conceptually ugly collapse of the wave-function. The selection of a particular branch simply
corresponds to a particular scattering velocity.
This explanation, that the branches of a wave-function may represent various modulations of the
metrical Compton wave, might not have been suggested in the past.
112

The de BroglieBohm pDeilot-wave may be derived from GR

There are more recent versions of Bohms theory championed by John Bell, [Bell, 1987] and
othersfor example, Peter Holland [Holland, 1993)] and Drr, Goldstein, and Zanghi [Drr,
Goldstein, Zanghi, 1996]. They show that a consistent quantum mechanical theory may be derived
based on just three assumptions:
There exists a function, (of unspecified ontology) with the following properties:
1. It satisfies Schrdingers wave equation.
2. The momentum p of a particle satisfies the pilot-wave relation:
p Im

; = gradient operator

(Here Im stands for the imaginary part).

3. Some random disturbance is present.

David Bohm and his followers have shown that the pilot-wave relation together with the Schrdinger
equation may be used to construct a theory that in all respects is equivalent to elementary quantum
mechanics, provided that also some random disturbance is present.
However, one puzzling aspect of Bohms theory is the nonlocal character of the pilot-wave. Since it
contains the ratio between two functions, the momentum p could become very large even when the
magnitude of the wave-function is close to zero. Therefore, it could exert possibly non-local
influences over vast distances even at very low amplitudes. It is difficult to understand how this
might be possible and how distant wave-functions of negligible power could influence the local
motion of particles. Bohm called this property active information, proposing that the pilot function
somehow informs each particle how to move without exerting any physical force. Since this
appears rather speculative, the mysterious long-range action could have discouraged more substantial
support for Bohms theory. It might also have deterred Einstein from fully supporting the de Broglie
interpretation.
But there is a physical explanation to the pilot-wave that Einstein probably would have appreciated.
If the metrics oscillate, de BroglieBohm pilot-wave relation may be derived from the geodesic
equation of GR!
113

At first I thought that this only holds for small velocities [Masreliez, 2005a], but a closer
investigation has shown that it is true in general as shown in Appendix IV. Oscillating metrics in GR
would not only explain why there is a quantum world but also explain the role of the pilot-wave. In
the derivation of the geodesic from GR (assuming that the metrics oscillate), we find that the sum of
a few oscillating terms must equal zero. This leads to a geodesic equation that involves velocity
rather than acceleration like in the usual geodesic.
This is a relativistic version of the pilot-wave relation.
It is derived in Appendix IV. With this interpretation, the pilot-wave finds its natural explanation; it
expresses how a particle responds to modulation of the spacetime metrics. A particle moves on its
GR geodesic without being subjected to any external force. A particles trajectory could be curved,
and certain regions of resonance might be preferred. In this way, the pilot function could influence
the motion of a particle via the scale of spacetime without energy transfer. This action could even
take place non-locally since it occurs in the metrical scale of spacetime. A particle follows a path in
spacetime determined by its oscillating metrics. The wave-function that modulates the metrics shifts
the phase depending on the trajectory and its surrounding. Regions of resonance are created where
the phases of vid different alternate paths coincide. The particle prefers these resonating regions,
which means that energies and locations might be quantized. Resonances will occur only at certain
Compton frequencies (energies) and at specific spatial locations. This explains the discrete nature of
QT and its wave-mechanical features.

The Schrdinger equation

Bohm and his followers were able to show that classical QT may be derived from the pilot-wave if
the wave-function satisfies the Schrdinger equation and there also is some random disturbance. It
turns out that the Schrdinger equation also may be derived from GR with oscillating metrics if we
assume that the Ricci scalar of GR equals zero. The Ricci scalar also disappears for the
gravitational field in vacuum (disregarding the small contribution from the SEC expansion), and it
seems reasonable that this also should be the case for oscillating metrics.
This assumption leads to a wave equation from which the Schrdinger equation may be derived,
assuming that the phase of the metrical Compton oscillation depends on a field potential, which is a

114

function of location. This assumption is reasonable if the field potential influences the velocity,
because it will then also change the frequency and the phase of the Compton oscillation.
The Ricci scalar turns out to be a complicated sum of wave terms. We get the Schrdinger equation
by setting the sum of these terms equal to zero. Appendix IV gives this derivation.
Thus, modeling scale-oscillation in GR yields the Schrdinger equation.
This tells us that if a field potential influences the phase of the oscillating spacetime metrics, a
particles Compton carrier wave is modulated by wave-functions that satisfy the Schrdinger
equation. It is interesting that this derivation of the Schrdinger equation holds true independently of
the particles trajectory, which means that the Schrdinger equation expresses spacetime resonances
that only depend on the particles energy (i.e. Compton frequency), on the imposed field, and on the
surrounding spatial geometry; the equation does not model a particles motion. Like a terrain map,
the Schrdinger equation describes peaks and valleys but does not describe motion through this
terrain. This is also consistent with the continuous representation in terms of wave-functions, which
do not model quantum jumps.
In [Masreliez, 2005a] the Schrdinger equation for the electromagnetic field is also derived from
oscillating metrics in GR. We might therefore speculate that the electromagnetic field could be a
modality of spacetime metrical oscillation for which the mathematical CURL of a vector field (the
electromagnetic vector potential) does not disappear.
This would explain the many similarities between the electromagnetic waves and QT waves such as
for example interference.
Furthermore, if the scale of spacetime corresponds to a fifth dimension it would also be consistent
with Theodor Kaluzas finding that Maxwells equations may be derived from a five-dimensional
version of GR.
Since both the pilot-wave and the Schrdinger equation may be derived from GR if the metrics of
spacetime oscillate, quantum mechanics follows directly from GR since random disturbance is
always present.
This provides a clear and direct link between GR and QT that previously has been missing!

115

The double-slit experiment

Next, I will make a few comments on the double-slit experiment, which often is used as an
introduction to the quantum world. Many, including Richard Feynman, have given up on trying to
make sense of this seemingly mysterious experiment. But there may be a simple explanation.
Here is the experiment.
Consider a particle moving toward a screen with two narrow slits. After passing through one of the
slits, the particle strikes a second screen, where an interference pattern develops even when particles
arrive one at a time. With interference pattern, is meant the fact that particles seem to prefer certain
fringelike bands on the screen, which gradually will appear after many particles have passed through
the slits. This unexplainable and strange phenomenon initially motivated the particle/wave duality
idea and Bohrs Principle of Complementarity. The interference indicates the presence of some kind
of wave while the dots where particles hit the screen show that there are individual particles.
According to the standard interpretation, a particle somehow simultaneously passes through both slits
and strangely interferes with itself. The wave-function with its different branches corresponding to
the fringes on the screen collapses when the particle strikes the screen. This seems strange to say the
least! It seems like with this interpretation something must be missing.
David Bohm and others have shown that an interference pattern develops if his pilot-wave guides the
particle, assuming that the pilot-wave simultaneously passes through both slits. However, this does
not really explain the physical mechanism at work either. This problem is addressed here, together
with a possible explanation.

Explaining the double-slit experiment

When the particle passes through one of the two slits, it might randomly become slightly deflected
for example, by interacting with an edge. The particles matter-wave interferes with the double-slit
geometry. This sets up a wave pattern behind the screen in the scale of the oscillating spacetime,
which depends on the particles location and velocity, and guides the particle via the corresponding
geodesic. Note that the matter-wave derived in Appendix III is a phase modulation of the Compton
wave caused by the term xv/c2 that extends both in front of and behind the particle and guides it
even after passing the slits. Thus, the particle is guided by its own matter-wave and by the doubleslit geometry via feed-back action. The particle prefers regions with large wave amplitude and avoids
116

regions with small amplitude. It is likely to end up in one of several interference fringes. Should it
initially by chance move into a region with small interference amplitude, where the wave-function is
close to zero, the geodesic will guide it into a region with larger amplitude. Remember that the
momentum becomes large when is small, which means that the particle avoids regions with
smaller.
Figure 15 shows a numerical prediction of how the particle fringes could be created if the spacetime
metrics oscillate. This prediction is based on analytic expressions for the geodesic derived in
[Masreliez, 2005a].

Figure 15: Computed double-slit fringes

117

Thus, a particle may be guided by its own matter-wave, with the new and interesting insight that the
guiding mechanism is the geodesic of GR. This connects QT firmly with GR. It also illustrates a
unique property: the guiding action is controlled via feedback. Spacetime resonance guides the
particle, and the resonance pattern depends on the particles motion. This explains how a particle
finds its way into interference fringes and how resonance patterns surrounding the atomic nucleus
may constrain electrons to their orbits.
We saw that wave-functions are solutions to the Schrdinger equation. They describe the response of
spacetime if a particle were to be present. Thus, these wave-functions are not active unless a
particle is present. This clarifies the role of the wave-functions and explains how they represent
potentialities rather than physical waves. The quantum wave that modulates the metrics will
materialize only when activated by the presence of a particle.
The Compton carrier also explains why a multi-particle wave-function only depends on particle
locations and not on their velocities. Different velocities mean different relativistic Compton
frequencies and therefore non-interference. Interference will only occur if identical particles move at
the same velocity, and in this case, interference only depends on the locations of the particles. Thus,
wave-functions modeling interference imply that particles are in the same energy state with the same
Compton frequency. Their velocities do not appear explicitly because they are the same for all
particles. If this is not the case, there is no interference.
Finally, let me offer a possible physical explanation to why particles might prefer locations with
positive interference where the wave amplitude is large. If a particle is sustained by the Compton
oscillation, its energy must somehow originate in the cosmological scale-expansion. In resonating
states, the energy needed to sustain the particle is less than in other states. Since in nature energy is
minimized, resonating states are preferred.

Spooky Action at a distance and Quantum Entanglement

QT implies the existence of seemingly instantaneous influences between particles well separated in
space, which would violate the claim that that highest possible velocity is the speed of light. Einstein
rightly believed that either something must be wrong with this or that something is lacking in our
understanding. He called it spooky action at a distance. He opposed QT throughout his life,

118

contending that something important must be missing in the theory; he concluded that QT is an
incomplete theory.
Here is an excerpt from a paper he published in 1948 [Einstein 1948], where he expresses his
concerns:
If one asks what, irrespective of quantum mechanics, is characteristic in the world of ideas in
physics, one is first of all struck by the following:
The concepts of physics relate to a real outside world, that is, ideas are established relating to things
such as bodies, fields, etc., which claim real existence that is independent of the perceiving
subject. It is further characteristic of these physical objects that they are thought of as arranged in
a spacetime continuum. An essential aspect of this arrangement of things in physics is that they lay
claim, at a certain time, to an existence independent of one another, provided these objects are
situated in different parts of space. Unless one makes this kind of assumption about the
independence of existence (the being thu) of objects which are far apart from one another in
space, which stems in the first place from everyday thinking, physical thinking in the familiar sense
would be impossible. It is also hard to see any way of formulating and testing the laws of physics
unless one makes a clear distinction of this kind.
Here is another quote from the same source:
There seems to me no doubt that those physicists who regard the descriptive method of quantum
mechanics as definite in principle woulddrop the requirementfor the independent existence of
physical reality present in different parts of space; they would be justified in pointing out that
quantum theory nowhere makes explicit use of this requirement. I admit this, but would point out:
when I consider the physical phenomena known to meI still cannot find any fact anywhere which
would make it appear likely that (the requirement) will have to be abandoned.

These statements express Einsteins doubts regarding QT in clear language. He states his
unwillingness to accept non-locality without any ontological explanation for it. It appears that he
wanted to be able to understand QT at a deeper level and not merely to accept spooky non-locality as
being an unexplainable fact. He also makes the point that non-locality would conflict with SR.
Clearly Einsteins reasoning makes perfect sense if one does not know that in addition to the four
spacetime dimensions there exists a fifth dimension in the form of the dynamic scale. We should
119

sympathize with him rather than discard his objections as an old mans ruminations, because nobody
could claim to understand QT, not even Richard Feynman. And we should admire Einsteins
uncompromising conclusion that the Copenhagen interpretation cannot be the last word. In fact, QT
cannot be understood in the same way as classical physics is understood. We can visualize classical
physics, but we cannot visualize QT within the four-dimensional world of SR and GR.
In the past, nobody suspected that the four dimensions of spacetime were insufficient to describe the
world. They did not realize that the scale of spacetime may participate in all dynamic processes as a
hidden fifth dimension. And, since there is no speed of light constraint for influences via the metrical
scale, which may act instantaneously by curving space, the troublesome non-locality of QT might
find a physical explanation. What seems to be spooky action at a distance could be nothing but a
particle response to the metrical wave-field. If this response does not transmit energy but acts via a
geodesic, it could be instantaneous and could alter conditions even at a very distant location, which
might change the outcome of a measurement there.
By this mechanism, the outcome of a measurement taken of a certain particle A may influence the
outcome of a distant measurement of another particle B. We say that A and B are entangled.
This entanglement could take place via the scale of spacetime beyond its four dimensions. This
makes sense since we saw that the QT wave-functions could be modulations of the scale of
spacetime.
QT cannot be explained without knowing about this dependence via the scale, and if we dont know
about it, we might, to use Einsteins words, believe that there is spooky action at a distance.
But, by incorporating the new scale dimension, QT becomes explainable.
Hence, influence via the scale would explain quantum entanglement by which the local behavior of a
particle may depend on another possibly very distant particle. This entanglement acts instantaneously
in violation of any velocity constraint like the speed of light. We might visualize this as a scale
resonance condition in a fifth dimension between the particles that makes them act in unity.
This would also imply simultaneity, which is in conflict with SR. However, the new theory of Inertia
to be presented below allows simultaneity since it is compatible with absolute cosmological time.
The SEC theory implies non-local action via the changing cosmological scale; it assumes that the
scale-expansion acts simultaneously across the universe. If this wasnt the case, regions with
different scale-factors could coexist, which would create streaming galaxy motion due to

120

gravitational gradients. Although such streaming has been observed to some extent over regions
spanning hundreds of millions of light-years, these streaming velocities are quite small compared to
the speed of light, suggesting that the cosmological scale-expansion tracks closely across the
universe. It is also possible that a feedback mechanism might exist that equalizes the cosmological
expansion rate much like air pressure is being equalized by streaming air masses here on Earth.

A new view of the quantum world

The link between GR and QT suggested by the SEC theory and its DIST process is both direct and
clear. Hopefully, this connection will explain the following fundamental but previously poorly
understood issues in QT:
The nature of the QT wave-functions: Each particle is associated with a Compton oscillation in the
metrics of spacetime, which is modulated by the QT wave-functions.
The particle/wave duality: Modulation of the Compton oscillation during motion causes the de
Broglie matter-wave. Particle and wave are two sides of the same coin.
Discrete quantum states: A particles energy determines its relativistic Compton frequency, which
generates a corresponding QT resonance pattern. Therefore, there is a direct correspondence between
energy states and distinct resonance states. Since particles prefer resonating states, the energy we
observe is quantized.
Nonlocal action: The non-local action does not occur via spacetime, but via the metrics of
spacetime. There is no light-speed constraint for influence via the metrics.
Superluminal correlation: May exist via the metrics of spacetime, which is a new channel of
influence beyond spacetime.

We have seen that the quantum world might result from the wavelike nature of particles and their
Compton oscillation. Particles or fields that are not represented by such oscillation cannot be
quantized. One example is the gravitational field expressing the curvature of spacetime due to matterenergy. If matter is formed as standing waves of the spacetime metrics, it is possible that matterenergy is generated by the nonlinear rather than by the linear part of the energy-momentum tensor of
GR. This energy does not appear in the form of harmonic oscillation and therefore cannot be readily

121

quantized. This might explain the difficulty encountered when trying to quantize gravity and could
explain the much lower field strength of gravitational interaction.
Although this section on quantum theory does not address all aspects of quantum theory it offers a
possible ontological explanation to our quantum world, which is better than no explanation at all.
Hopefully it will inspire further investigation and lead to an improved appreciation of the world we
inhabit. Appendix IV firmly establishes the link between general relativity and quantum mechanics
by deriving the deBroglie-Bohm pilot wave and the Schrdinger equation directly from general
relativity.

Chapter VI: On Motion and Inertia

The problem addressed in this chapter
There is a problem with discussing Motion since we all know what motion means and therefore
have difficulties admitting that our understanding might be faulty. We have lived with a hidden,
unrecognized, incomprehension regarding motion since the beginning of human civilization and have
in the past existed and thrived while not understanding it. Anyone challenged with the task of
understanding motion in detail is faced with the problem of having to unlearn what is (considered)
known before being able to absorb a new interpretation.
Below this subject is approached by first reviewing how people have addressed Motion in the past,
and as usual it seems that the ancient Greeks were far advanced even here, and that we today to some
extent have forgotten their valuable insight.

A fresh look at Motion

If the SEC model is right, and the expanding scale causes time to progress, it would also mean
that the cosmological scale expansion acts as a universal clock for the cosmos. However, this
disagrees with the celebrated as well as contested finding by Special Relativity that time is
relative. By SR clocks in different states of inertial motion run at different paces, which would
means that there is no common absolute time. This is perhaps the most surprising and vigorously
debated consequence of SR.

122

The origin of the inertial force has been unknown ever since Newton introduced his second law
of motion, F=am, which deals with this force F. Nowadays there is a general agreement that the
inertial force is closely related to the gravitational force, which by GR is caused by spacetime
curvature. However, by SR all inertial frames have the same flat Minkowskian spacetime
geometry, which implies that there should be no curvature of spacetime when transiting from one
inertial frame to another via acceleration.
Therefore, by current physics the inertial force cannot be explained as being a curved spacetime
phenomenon. The development of this section attempts to resolve this issue by showing that
acceleration may cause spacetime curvature while preserving an absolute pace of time.
This sharply disagrees with current physics and would have revolutionary implications for future
science if it is correct. It will be justified by taking a close look at our treatment of Motion in
the past. I ask the reader to have patience when I retrace the familiar path of thought that led to
our current treatment of motion, while along this path pointing one where we might have gone
wrong in the past. This soul searching review is necessary, and could lead to a very different
perception of the world.

Reviewing the historical treatment of motion

The nature of motion has always been mysterious. People have wondered how a rigid object
can move at all, noting that it at one time is in one location and at some later time in another
location, but how does it transit between these locations? Does it do it in a stepwise manner, or
does it somehow change its shape and move like an inchworm? Although this question was
discussed at length by the ancient Greeks (for example Zeno) it is not generally posed nowadays.
However, it is still fundamentally important, since the mystery of motion still remains
unresolved and appears to defy detailed analysis.
If motion of a rigid object proceeds in a stepwise manner that mimics continuous transition these
steps must be very small, and the smaller they are the higher their frequency must be. If such
motion approaches a smooth continuous state this frequency increases beyond any limit. The
ancient Greeks thought that this is impossible, and now we know that they actually were right,
123

because Heisenbergs uncertainty relation prevents the incremental steps from becoming
arbitrary small; stepwise motion dissolves in a fuzziness of uncertainty.
In the past people thought that this objection might be overcome by differential calculus,
originally developed by Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz, which allowed the increments to
become infinitely small, but in the beginning of 20th century we learned that this does not
resolve the problem due to quantum mechanical constraints. In fact, this issue has never been
resolved, and nowadays people in science and engineering rely heavily on differential methods
when modeling motion while seldom questioning their applicability, although we have come to
realize that these methods no longer work in quantum theory.
There is also the question of what might cause time to progress, a question intimately related to
the concept of Motion. We know that we are somehow moving forward in time, but how and
why this should be the case is still a mystery.
We may paraphrase Augustine of Hippo:
What, then, is motion? If no one asks me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I do not
know.
Without knowing the answer to this question I think it is fair to say that we really understand
cannot the world.
In the 1600s Ren Descartes and others introduced the use of coordinate systems into science,
which made it possible to describe motion mathematically by using coordinate representations.
In a two dimensional coordinate representation of motion time may be handled by letting
points along the abscissa represent moments in time, and points on the ordinate represent
locations in space. Nowadays people in science and engineering do not think twice about this,
although representing time via a coordinate on a line obscures its most important aspect; the fact
that time always moves forward. In this respect locations in time clearly differ from locations in
space. Representing it as increments on a line allows us to think of time as being able to run both
forwards and backwards. In spite of the fact that we know that something must be wrong with
this representation we typically ignore it.

124

Since motion now was modeled via graphs using coordinate systems, the next step was to use
these coordinate systems to relate points in space and time in two different coordinate systems,
one at rest and the other in relative motion. For each instant in time the same location becomes
different points in these two coordinate systems, and in each system motion may be described by
tracing the location of a point as a function of time given by a graphical representation in three
dimensional (3D) space. Still, this did not resolve the neglected irreversibility of time.
After the introduction of differential calculus Newtons law of motion formed the basis for
differential equations of motion, which soon became the preferred way of expressing motion
mathematically, and today this approach is extensively used in numerous applications. For
example, the planetary ephemerides are currently computed by numerical integration based on
differential equations that take into account the gravitational attraction of the Sun and all the
planets as well as a large number of asteroids.
But, in spite of these very impressive achievements, we are still far away from thoroughly
understanding the essential nature of motion, and might have overlooked a fundamentally
important aspect to be discussed in this monograph.
The presentation in this chapter will proceed along the following lines:

The use of coordinate representations in modeling motion is examined. Although

they may be used to relate points in a coordinate system at different instants of
time, they do not capture the irreversible nature of the progression of time or the
process of motion. This poses a problem since the most important aspect of time
is that it is irreversible; time never runs backwards. Another problem is that when
coordinate graphs first were introduced into science the geometric properties of
spacetime were not taken into account, since at the time people did not know that
geometrical properties of space and time might influence motion via gravitationaltype, curved spacetime, action due to changing spacetime metrics.

Einsteins Special Relativity (SR) theory was a significant development in the

modeling of motion. It is based on two postulates:
1. The Principle of Relativity by which all free coordinate frames moving at
constant velocities (inertial coordinate systems) are physically equivalent.
125

2. A constant speed of light whereby the velocity of light remains the same
relative to these inertially moving coordinate frames.
Using these assumptions Einstein derived a coordinate transformation for the
temporal and the three spatial coordinates. However, in doing this he also made
an additional implicit, but important, assumption; he assumed that the transformed
coordinates he derived for a moving frame based on a constant speed of light have
the same metrical meaning as those experienced by an observer at rest in this
moving frame (co-moving observer). With this assumption he derived the Lorentz
Transformation (LT). However, since the moving coordinates of SR are
constructed using light signals of constant but limited velocities it is possible that
these coordinates might appear to be distorted; they might not be the same as
those experienced locally in the moving frame.

The LT implies one of the most hotly contested claims of the SR theory, a concept
of relative time, according to which time may proceed at different paces in
different inertial frames, suggesting that the progression of time is not a universal
concept but is in the eyes of the beholder. This has caused a lot of confusion and
consternation and appears to be in conflict with non-local influences in quantum
theory as well as with our intuition.

Rather than synchronizing clocks by the use of light signals we may instead
adhere to the postulate of Principle of Relativity by which time always runs at
the same pace in all inertial coordinate systems (coordinate frames), which would
mean that the progression of time would be a universal aspect of existence. We
then find that Woldemar Voigts Transformation of 1887 (preceding the LT) will
make time run at the same pace. Voigts Transformation (VT) differs from the LT
by a constant scale factor that depends on the relative velocity, but it also satisfies
the two SR postulates [Voigt, 1887].

The LT and the VT are modeling motion via coordinate transformations.

However, coordinate transformations are also used in General Relativity (GR)
where they express spacetime geometries via line-elements. If we treat the VT as
a coordinate transformation of GR we find that it implies that the scale of moving
coordinate systems would appear to be contracted by the same scale-factor as the
126

one which in SR accounts for time dilation and length contraction. This brings up
the question of whether the VT should be seen as a transformation of GR that
relates geometries of moving frames. This interpretation would make time
dilation and length contraction purely geometrical aspects caused by an apparent
relative scale-contraction during motion.

Coordinate transformations of GR deal with spacetime geometries, which define

physics via the field equations of GR. If these field equations are identical for two
different coordinate representations these representations are physically
equivalent. This is the case for the VT and the LT; their GR field equations are
identical because their Christoffel symbols are identical, which explains why they
both satisfy the two postulates of SR. This makes us wonder if the success of these
transformations primarily might be due to conserving the GR field equations.

The origin of the phenomenon of Inertia (what causes the inertial force during
acceleration) has remained elusive in spite of the fact that Newtons second law of
motion, which deals with this phenomenon, is one of the cornerstones of
mathematical physics; we know that acceleration is resisted by an inertial force
but we do not know why this should be the case. A thought experiment previously
used by Einstein comparing the gravitational force acting on an object on the
surface of the Earth to the inertial force experienced by an observer inside an
accelerating box in outer space suggests that acceleration may induce spacetime
curvature similar to that of a gravitational field.

In investigating this possibility the author found a certain dynamic scale factor for
the Minkowskian line-element of GR with the interesting property that all
accelerating trajectories will take place on GR geodesics of spacetime [Masreliez,
2007a, 2008, 2010 and Appendix VI]. Motion will take place on a GR geodesic
regardless of the magnitude and direction of the acceleration!

This inertial scale factor is identical to the scale contraction implied by the
Voigt Transformation! This coincidence suggests that the phenomenon of
inertia might be caused by spacetime curvature induced by acceleration, and
therefore that the VT might model motion better than the LT. This would make
inertia a curved spacetime phenomenon, just like gravitation.
127

In our daily life we often use the terms, past, present and future, with the
clear understanding that the past differs from the present and the present from the
future. Yet, strangely our current mathematics used in modeling motion does not
distinguish between these fundamentally different concepts! This should be a
clear signal that something is seriously wrong with our treatment of motion in
science. Since our equations do not imply any difference between the past, the
present and the future they suggest that time should be allowed to run both
forwards and backwards. Obviously this is not right, and we have to conclude that
the current the treatment of motion in science is incomplete.

There are two aspects of time that never have been clearly delineated in the past
- the duration of time intervals like the second, and the pace of time. Time may
always progress at the same incremental pace, but the perceived durations of these
increments may vary depending on relative motion. This would imply the
existence of an additional dynamic degree of freedom in addition to the four
spacetime dimensions.

The following discussion might be a bit challenging, not because it is hard to understand, but
because it introduces an unfamiliar view of existence. In the presentation to follow I have
avoided mathematical details as far as possible, partly because the concepts presented do not
require them, partly because they tend to obscure the message and objective of this chapter. The
interested reader may find the details in the Appendices or in the listed references.
However, it should be noted that the development doesnt follow the well trodden path, but
introduces a new idea in the form of a dynamic scale of four-dimensional spacetime making the
world fundamentally five-dimensional.
The SEC model assumes that the expanding cosmological scale marks out the progression of
time, and that this is the same across the cosmos. Therefore, the new thinking is based on the
following postulate:
Simultaneity Postulate: The present time, NOW, is the same across the cosmos.
Although this postulate disagrees with Special Relativity by which time is relative, it will be
shown that it is possible to reconcile it with the observational consequences of SR. Thus, the
128

cosmological temporal reference is always the present time, it is not some time in the past, for
example a postulated time of creation.

The role of coordinate transformations in the context of motion

A classical coordinate transformation used in modeling motion is the so-called Galilean
Transformation (GT) whereby the location of a coordinate point is given in two different
coordinate systems, one at rest and the other in relative motion with constant velocity v.
For motion in the x-direction at the velocity v the GT takes the modern form:
x ' x vt
y' y
z' z
t' t

(VI.1)

Here the primed coordinates represent a Moving Frame (MF) and the un-primed a Stationary
Frame (SF). By this transformation an observer who is fixed in the MF at x=0 is moving with
velocity v in the SF, since then x=vt. Time is treated as an independent coordinate used as a
temporal label for absolute time instants in the two frames. The velocity v may be defined as
being the distance between two locations x1 and x2 that is covered during the time interval t2-t1 as
measured by observers with synchronized clocks at the fixed locations x1 and x2.
v

x2 x1
t2 t1

(VI.2)

This coordinate representation does not capture, or even consider, what might be called the
process of motion. It doesnt describe the physical process that makes an object change its
location; a process that clearly distinguishes between the past and the future. This is not
surprising since such a process would be intimately connected with the progression of time for
which no explanation has existed. Although the passage of time should have a physical
explanation such an explanation has been missing.

129

Galileo realized that physics locally is the same for observers in motion at constant velocities.
This is now referred to as Galilean Relativity. It is interesting to note that the ancient Greeks
were well aware of this aspect of motion. Here is Aristotles version of Zenos Arrow Paradox:

1. When the arrow is in a place just its own size, its at rest.
2. At every moment of its flight, the arrow is in a place just its own size.
3. Therefore, at every moment of its flight, the arrow is at rest.
It is aerie how Aristotle could so clearly have expressed a key aspect of motion by realizing that
the arrow actually is at rest in its local space even during motion (he speculated that the arrow
somehow carries the surrounding air with it).
It appears that something more than coordinate transformation is required to model motion.
In fact, as we shall see, four-dimensional (4D) coordinate transformation cannot model motion.

Special Relativity and the Lorentz Transformation

The Special Relativity (SR) theory implies a generalization of the GT, which was motivated by
the fact that, as modeled by the GT, the laws of physics appear to change depending on motion;
the equations of physics do not remain the same after applying the GT. This is in conflict with
Galilean Relativity, by which everything should remain the same within inertial frames that
move at constant velocities.
In the late 1800s Henrik Lorentz and Henri Poincare suggested the following transformation as a
modification of the GT the Lorentz Transformation (LT), which for motion in the x-direction
takes the form:

130

x ' x xt
y' y
z' z

(VI.3)

t ' t xv / c 2

1
1 (v / c)2

This transformation preserves the laws of physics, but there are two rather strange aspects of it:
First: The temporal relation involves the spatial coordinate x, which was introduced to make it
work in the sense that the laws of physics are conserved using the LT rather than the GT.
Second: Letting x=0 we find that t=t, which implies that the temporal coordinate in the MF
does not agree with that in the SF, seemingly in violation Galilean relativity.
In his paper on Special Relativity in 1905 Einstein derived the LT, and ever since then people
have had diverse, and sometime adverse, attitudes regarding this theory. Many use the SR theory
routinely without further reflection since it seems to work.
The most controversial aspect of SR undoubtedly is its claim that time is relative, which goes
against Newtons concept of absolute time as well as our own instinctive ideas about time.
Also, according to SR, traveling at high velocities may cause us to age slower. This seems very
strange since SR tells us that all free motion at constant velocities (inertial motion) are physically
equivalent, and therefore that the local conditions within any moving frame should be the same,
including aging. So, how can time slow down in motion, yet remain the same? This dilemma is
popularly known as the Twin Paradox, by which twins traveling apart and later when reuniting
both claims that their sibling should be younger. Einstein made the observation that a traveler
moving on a circular path should be younger when returning to the point of departure.
However, this assertion has come under repeated scrutiny over the years, the challenges posed by
Dr. Herbert Dingle being the perhaps most persistent. Dingle argued that since all inertially
moving objects are equivalent, with the same local physics, they should all experience the same
pace of time. But, according to SR, a moving clock ticks slower. This time dilation is a
symmetric situation in the sense that a clock that moves in relation to any other clock picked as
131

reference always appears to run slower with a rate that depends on its velocity relative to the
chosen reference frame. How can this be possible? According to SR time dilation is real and
motion is believed to change the pace of clocks! Dingle repeatedly challenged several well
known scientists trying to get and explanation to this mystery, but he never got an acceptable
explanation. In desperation he then published the book Science at the Cross Roads [Dingle,
1972].
Dingle was right; as we shall see there is no physical explanation to time dilation in current
physics!
People have tried to invoke acceleration in explaining the twin paradox, but this cannot be
done as is shown by the following thought experiment based on symmetrically accelerating
twins.
Let the twins initially be stationary at the same location O in the beginning of the thought
experiment and then let them accelerate symmetrically in opposite directions for the same time
as shown by their onboard clocks. After this first phase they slow down symmetrically, turn
around and start moving inertially toward each other at the same time (as shown by their local
clocks). On the way back they will by SR then both conclude that the others clock is running
slower, yet their clocks must agree due to symmetry when they reconvene at the original location
O. There is no escape from this fact; we must conclude that the observed time dilation merely is
an apparent effect that does not influence the pace of local clocks.

A potential problem with Special Relativity

In his SR paper Einstein thought that the transformed coordinates he derived for the moving
coordinate frame must be equivalent to those of the stationary frame. Consequently he assumed
that they must have the same metrical meaning as those of the local stationary frame. If this
actually is the case coordinate increments in the moving frame may be directly compared to
those of the stationary frame. In particular, coordinate increments perpendicular to the motion
should remain the same. He used this assumption to determine the constant in the relations for
the LT (see below) [Einstein, 1905].
132

As we shall see there might be a problem with this derivation.

Most people, active in physics today, are familiar with Einsteins derivation of his SR theory.
However, there is one aspect of this derivation that needs to be carefully reexamined because of
an implicit assumption, which at the time seemed eminently reasonable.
In deriving the Lorentz Transformation (LT) Einstein used symmetry between inertial frames to
arrive at the conclusion that the forward transformation must be identical to its inverse.
Einsteins reasoning in his 1905 paper is here recalled in detail. Coordinates of the rest frame K
are denoted (t,x,y,z) and those of the moving frame k are denoted (,,,).
Quoting his paper of 1905:
In the equations of transformation which have been developed there enters an unknown
function of v, which we will now determine.
For this purpose we introduce a third system of co-ordinates K, which relatively to the
system K is in a state of parallel translatory motion parallel to its x-axis such that the
origin of co-ordinates of system K, moves with velocity -v on the axis of k. At the time t=0
let all three origins coincide, and when t=x=y=z=0 let the time t of the system K be zero.
We call the co-ordinates, measured in the system K, x, y, z, and by a twofold application
of our equations of transformation we obtain

t ' (v) (v)( v / c 2 ) (v)(v)t

x ' (v) (v)( v ) (v)(v) x
y (v) (v) (v) y
z (v) (v)(v) z
Since the relations between x, y, z and x, y, z do not contain the time t, the systems K and
K are at rest with respect to one another, and it is clear that the transformation from K to
K must be the identical transformation. Thus
(v)(v) 1

We now inquire into the signification of . We give our attention to that part of the y-axis
of system k which lies between =0, =0, =0 and =0, =l, =0. This part of the axis is a

133

rod moving perpendicularly to its axis with velocity v relatively to system K. Its ends
possess in K the co-ordinates

x1 vt , y1 0, z1 0

and

x1 vt , y2 1/ (v), z2 0
The length of the rod measured in K is therefore 1/(v); and this gives us the meaning of
the function (v). From reasons of symmetry it is now evident that the length of a given rod
moving perpendicularly to its axis, measured in the stationary system, must depend only on
the velocity and not on the direction and the sense of the motion. The length of the moving
rod measured in the stationary system does not change, therefore, if v and -v are
interchanged. Hence follows that 1/ (v)= 1/ (-v), or
(v)= (-v)
It follows from this relation and the one previously found that (v)= 1, so that the
transformation equations which have been found become

(t vcx / c 2 )
( x vt )
y
z

In this line of reasoning Einsteins claim that the transformation from K to K must be the
identical transformation is highlighted.
However this claim is not necessarily correct.
It may in fact have been a mistake because it is possible that the velocity may change the metrics
of spacetime as perceived by an observer in K.
134

The coordinates obtained by the LT may not have the same meaning as the coordinates
experienced by a co-moving observer.
Considering the fact that the moving coordinates are constructed based on light signals of limited
velocities it seems likely that this might distort the constructed coordinates, in particular when
the motion approaches the speed of light. Although the relationship between space and time
might remain the same, it is possible that coordinate increments in the two frames do not have
the same meaning; for example, their metrical scales might differ. This would put into question
the use of the Lorentz transformation in modeling motion, since it implicitly assumes that the
transformed, moving, coordinates have the same meaning and metrics as the stationary
coordinates.
The derived LT coordinates might differ from the local coordinates in the MF.
Of course, in 1905, when SR was proposed, the concept of different spacetime metrics was less
known and therefore this possibility was overlooked.
Unfortunately this may have prevented us from discovering the origin of Inertia.
In addition, fundamental concepts like temporal irreversibility and the progression of time are
lost in these coordinate manipulations of SR. Today people seem to have forgotten these
fundamental aspects of time.

Woldemar Voigts transformation

In the context of SR it is interesting to note that a similar transformation actually preceded the
LT; it was introduced by Woldemar Voigt in 1887. Voigts Transformation (VT) differs from the
LT by a constant scale-factor multiplying all four coordinate relations of the LT. When Henrik
Lorentz derived his transformation he was unaware of the VT and later regretted that he hadnt
given Woldemar Voigt proper recognition. The VT is:

135

x ' x xt
y' y /
z' z /

(VI.4)

t ' t xv / c 2

1
1 (v / c)2

In physics the VT works equally well as the LT does, and satisfies the two postulates upon
which Einstein based his SR theory. In retrospect, and with the help of GR, we now understand
why:
The LT and the VT line-elements are scale-equivalent in the sense that they give the same,
identical, field equations of GR!
This means that according to GR physical laws are satisfied regardless of which transformation
we use. This is true for all line-elements that differ from the LT or the VT by a constant scale
factor. As we shall see it implies the existence of an additional degree of dynamic freedom
beyond the four dimensions of spacetime.
The novel cosmological expansion process of the SEC model repeatedly reproduces the fourdimensional spacetime geometry of GR by semi-continuous, incremental, scale transitioning at
ever increasing scales, with the scale of spacetime acting as an additional degree of dynamical
freedom beyond the four of spacetime. However, this process cannot be modeled by GR, but
may be modeled by a five-dimensional version of GR where the fifth dimension models a
dynamic scale of 4D spacetime.
Although this chapter addresses motion in space rather than motion in time, the success of a
dynamic scale factor in explaining the cosmos suggests that it also could play a fundamental role
for motion in space. As we shall see this might actually be the case.
If the VT applies rather than the LT it would eliminate a most controversial aspect of SR, by
restoring a common, absolute, cosmological temporal reference; Newtons absolute time would
make a comeback! A common temporal reference would be welcome if it also preserves the

136

relativistic aspects of time and space implied by SR. Although this possibility today may seem
unconventional, not to say heretical, we shall see that there are valid arguments in support of it.

Motion in General Relativity

We saw that SR mixes time and space in its temporal coordinate relation, which suggests that
time and space may be treated on equal footing. Time then becomes just one of four dimensions
of space and time (spacetime), which further suggests that it might be possible to model motion
by the use four-dimensional (4D) geometry. Instead of modeling motion by a trajectory in space
indexed by time we could model motion as a one-dimensional world-line in four-dimensional
spacetime.
Einstein developed this idea in his celebrated General Relativity (GR) theory [Einstein, 1915] by
which he was able to explain gravitation as being a curved spacetime phenomenon resulting in
motion on geodesics of GR. However, GR deals with geometry, and in geometry a coordinate
point cannot move. Therefore, GR cannot model the process of motion or the progression of
time; it does not distinguish between, the past, the present, and the future.
With this development physics lost sight of a most fundamental aspect of our existence; we are
trying to understand the world without knowing what is causing the progression of time, which is
the most keenly experienced aspect of our lives!
If we treat the LT and the VT as transformations that define line-elements of GR we find that
applying the LT yields the Minkowskian line-element:

ds 2 (cdt ')2 dx '2 dy '2 dz '2

(VI.5)

While the VT yields the scaled Minkowskian line-element:

ds 2 1 (v / c)2 (cdt ')2 dx '2 dy '2 dz '2

(VI.6)

As already mentioned, these line-elements are physically equivalent because their Christoffel
symbols are identical and therefore also their GR field equations. The strange term -xv/c2 in the
temporal transformations may now find its explanation; it gives a scale-equivalent Minkowskian
137

form of the line-element! This fact may explain why they both work equally well in physics.
With this interpretation we have in effect moved away from modeling kinematic motion of a
point, as is done by the GT, to instead relate spacetime geometries via GR. This suggests that
motion in general somehow involves scale transition and conservation of local spacetime
geometries similar to in Aristotles version of Zenos arrow paradox.

Inertial motion as a limiting case of rotational motion

The line-element in GR for rotation around an axis with constant angular velocity may be
expressed by Borns cylindrical coordinates:

r 2
2
ds 1 cdt dr 2 2r 2 dtd dz 2
c

(VI.7)

In this line-element the temporal factor may be associated with spacetime curvature that
induces a centrifugal acceleration.
For a fixed location on the cylinder with dr=d=dz=0 this becomes:

r 2
v 2
2
2
ds 1 cdt 1 cdt
c
c

(VI.8)

v
ds 1 cdt
c
Here v is the velocity at radius r. We see that the temporal metric is the same as for Voigts
transformation.
Consider a clock at a radial distance r. From the point of view of a stationary observer there is
time-dilation due to spacetime curvature; the clock appears to run slower. Note that since the
temporal metric only depends on the velocity, it is independent of the radial distance if the
velocity is constant.
Now consider the situation where this radius becomes arbitrary large. The inertial acceleration is
given by (see Appendix V):
138

a r 2

v2
r

(VI.9)

We find that this acceleration disappears when r goes to infinity and the motion will then
approach that of an inertial frame moving rectilinearly at a constant velocity.
In other words, the object will be in an inertial frame of SR.
Since the increasing radius does not alter the temporal metric if the velocity is constant we
conclude that according to GR the temporal metrics in inertial frames, as experienced by a
stationary observer, are contracted by the inertial scale-factor. This observation argues in favor
of the VT over the LT, and provides additional support for the contention that motion curves
spacetime in a relative sense via the inertial scale-factor. It also demonstrates that SR is
inconsistent with GR.
Since the character of the temporal metrical factor in rotating frames should not change when the
radius of the motion increases the same metrical factor should also exist with inertially moving
frames.
This means that inertial frames in relative motion are in different Minkowskian manifolds.
The Twin Paradox inconsistency is caused by the failure to conceptually, and mathematically,
distinguish between a local rest frame and a moving frame in the belief that both these frames
belong to the same four-dimensional Minkowskian manifold.

The mystery of Inertia

From the very beginning of Western science the origin of Inertia has been mysterious. We know
that acceleration is resisted by an inertial force, we feel it in an accelerating or sharply turning
vehicle, but we do not know why it should exist. This is disturbing, because the physics of
motion is based on Newtons second law, which deals with the inertial force, but does not
explain it.
A cornerstone at the foundation of science has not yet found its physical explanation.
139

Newton and Einstein, as well as people in physics in general, have concluded that Inertia and
Gravitation must be closely related. The mass that appears in Newtons law of gravitation is the
same as the mass, by which acceleration induces the inertial force. Newton noticed that the
inertial centrifugal force acting on an orbiting stellar object like the Earth in its motion around
the Sun, which is proportional to the mass of the Earth, is balanced by a gravitational centripetal
force from the Sun that also is proportional to the mass of the Earth, and all observations and
experiments have shown that the inertial mass is the same as the gravitational mass. This is a
well known and accepted fact, which has been confirmed by experiments. But, we may still ask
why these two mass concepts should be the same.
Einstein simply assumed that this is the case and explored the consequences of this assumption.
This eventually led him to General Relativity via a line of reasoning, which will not be
elaborated here. However, we will make use of, and further develop, a thought experiment
originally used by Einstein in comparing inertia and gravitation.
If inertia has the same origin as gravitation it should be caused by spacetime curvature, but the
LT implies that inertial frames have identical Minkowskian geometries and can therefore not
explain inertia. On the other hand, the VT implies that the scale of spacetime differs for moving
frames and, as we shall see, this would explain inertia!

Einsteins thought experiment revisited

Consider an object at rest on the surface of the Earth. It is subjected to a gravitational force that
pulls it down, and is supported by a force from the ground of equal magnitude opposing the
gravitational force, keeping it at rest. Although the object seemingly is at rest it is actually
accelerating in the upward direction in relation to what it would do if it wasnt supported from
the ground. We may say that falling is the most natural state for an object in a gravitational field
because when falling no forces act on it. This was one of Einsteins most important insights; free
fall is the most natural motion, in fact, the Earth is in free fall in its motion around the Sun.
Lets now compare this situation to an object inside an accelerating box far out in space away
from gravitating bodies. An observer inside the box would feel a force from the bottom of the
140

box that points in the direction to the (upward) acceleration, similar to the supporting force from
the ground here on Earth. Therefore, this observer is in a situation similar to an observer on the
ground; if the bottom of the box would disappear the observers acceleration would cease and the
box would keep accelerating away. Relative to the box the observer would accelerate way. In
this scenario free motion is accelerating away, just like falling in a gravitational field.
Now, let us drop a number of pebbles down a well, or mine shaft, on the Earth; we see these
pebbles accelerating away downwards, and we say that this acceleration is caused by the Earths
gravitational field. Let us next make a hole in the bottom of the accelerating box and drop the
same kind of pebbles through this hole; we see these pebbles also accelerating away and we
conclude that the reason is that the box accelerates. On the other hand, if we did not know this we
might conclude that the acceleration is caused by a gravitational field. If this is the case it would
mean that this gravitational field, which I will denote the inertial field should be caused by
spacetime curvature just like the gravitational field.
In other words, we conclude that acceleration might cause spacetime curvature. This is an
interesting proposition, and we might wonder if it may be substantiated.

The origin of Inertia

When comparing the LT to the VT we noticed that they differ by a scale factor, and that these
two transformations are physically equivalent. The scale factor for the line-element of GR that
corresponds to the LT equals one, while the scale factor for the line-element corresponding to the
VT is 1-(v/c)2.
If Inertia and Gravitation both are caused by spacetime curvature it would mean that the lineelement somehow changes during acceleration, which seems to contradict SR where the scale
factor is the same for all inertia frames. This seems to rule out spacetime curvature during
acceleration.
On the other hand, if we instead use the VT the scale depends on the relative velocity, and we
may ask if perhaps this might curve spacetime and induce the inertial force.

141

In order to investigate this possibility I applied an arbitrary scale factor, 2(x,y,z), which I
assumed was a function of the spatial location x, y, z, to the Minkowskian line-element. Since the
gravitational field on the surface of the Earth depends on the spatial location this should also be
the case for a scale-factor that might explain inertia. With this assumption I derived the geodesic
of GR, which describes how a particle will move in a gravitational field. The derivation may be
found in appendix V.
Here something surprising happens!
There is a certain scale factor for which this geodesic becomes an identity! This means that an
accelerating object would always be on a geodesic of GR, regardless of the magnitude or
direction of its acceleration.
In other words, this particular scale factor might create an inertial field similar to the
gravitation field that induces the inertial force.
The dynamic scale factor that causes motion on a geodesic of GR is 1/! - I will call it the
Inertial Scale Factor. It depends on the relative velocity between the box and the pebble.

Inertial Scale Factor: = 1 (v / c)2

We recognize this scale factor from SR where is appears in the expressions for length contraction
and time dilation.
It is also the (square root of) the scale-factor appearing in the VT line-element! It suggests that
the VT rather than the LT ought to be used in physics.
The similarity between Inertia and Gravitation is illustrated in Figure 16.

142

Figure16: Acceleration curves spacetime

An object subjected to a force is accelerating relative to an inertial geodesic (which in this case
is motion with constant velocity) exactly like an object on the surface of the Earth is accelerating
relative to free fall. In both situations free fall is accelerating away. This development may be
found in Appendix V and in [Masreliez, 2007a].

An ontological explanation to the inertial scale factor

Let us assume that all particles are standing waves of some undefined nature confined to small
spatial volumes that oscillate at the speed of light. How a particle actually is formed by these
standing waves, and what constitutes them, is immaterial to the following line of reasoning.
When a particle moves it might preserve its oscillation properties including its oscillation period
as illustrated in figures 17 a, b, and c where IRF stands for Inertial Reference Frame (here c=1).

143

Figure 17 a, b and c: Relative scale contraction during motion

If the period of the oscillation remains the same it would imply that there is scale contraction
perpendicular to the motion since the path length of the light path is unchanged. This contraction
is in agreement with Voigts Transformation where it corresponds to the scale factor of the GR
line-element given by the VT. It is also consistent with the inertial scale factor that explains the
inertial force. This suggests that:
The Inertial Scale Factor expresses how a particle with its pace of time is unchanged appears to
respond to a changing velocity.
Since motion appears to change the scale perpendicular to the motion it will also appear to
change it in the direction parallel to the motion. Let the observed distance between two mirrors
in motion be D as illustrated in Figure 18, and the distance between these mirrors at rest be D.

Figure18: Scale contraction parallel to the motion

If the period remains the same both in motion and at rest we have:

Period=T +T =

2D 2D ' 2D '
2D '

(VI.10)
c
c v c v c[1 (v / c)2 ]

This implies that distance increments parallel to the motion are contracted:
144

D ' [1 (v / c)2 ] D (VI.11)

Here the apparent inertial scale contraction acts via the Inertial Scale Factor [1-(v/c)2]1/2, but
there is also additional apparent length contraction due to the motion. The latter length
contraction is also present in SR. If the pace of time is adjusted by the same scale factor, all four
coordinates are scaled equally, and the moving frame appears to be contracted in scale as
illustrated by Figure 17c. This scale contraction is consistent with the VT rather than the LT.
Physical properties that sustain a particle (regardless of what they might be) are conserved by
scale-contraction due to scale-equivalence. In other words, by retaining its local spacetime
geometry a particle is conserved during motion without changing its oscillation frequency.
This suggests that the pace of atomic clocks does not change during inertial motion. Timedilation is a purely apparent phenomenon.
Summarizing, it appears that all objects in motion may appear to respond to acceleration by
contracting their spacetime scales in an apparent and relative sense.

Relative scale contraction during acceleration

Let us return to the thought experiment with the accelerating box. In dropping the pebbles though
the hole in the bottom we observe how they move away and how the pebbles dropped earlier
have reached higher relative velocities since the box keeps accelerating. At the moment we drop
a pebble its relative velocity is zero and the inertial scale factor then equals one. But, the farther
away the pebbles are the higher their velocities are, and the smaller are the corresponding inertial
scale factors. This suggests that spacetimes in motion appears to be contracted in relation to the
stationary scale factor of the box, which always equals one.
Furthermore, since this scale contraction at all time is relative to the box, the scale contraction
between inertial frames is a relative phenomenon that does not influence the local scale of
spacetime for an observer at rest in the moving frame, which always equals one.

145

This situation would be impossible in the context of a single, unique, 4D spacetime world, but
would become possible in a 5D world where the Inertial Scale Factor, acts as a fifth dynamic
degree of freedom.

Two aspects of time

Time is often treated as a coordinate dimension in physics, making the world four-dimensional.
However, current physics does not take into account the fact that there are two aspects of time;
the pace of its progression via the passage of time, and the duration of time intervals. It is
commonly believed that these two aspects are synonymous; that an observed time interval also
gives the elapsed number of seconds. However, this might not be true if the scale of spacetime is
an additional degree of freedom, which would allow all clocks to always run at the same pace,
yet also allow a measured time interval in a moving frame to differ due to its different scale.
Here I will propose that the pace of time is a cosmological property of all existence, and that it is
the same everywhere across the universe regardless of motion.
On the other hand, the duration of a time interval like a second may change in a relative sense.
Thus I will assume that there is a universal, cosmologically induced, pacesetter for all existence
mirrored by the reading of atomic clocks; I propose that atomic clocks remain synchronized
regardless of motion. This will be further elaborated.
Setting x=0 in Voigts Transformation (VI.4) we get t=t. This means that elapsed times as
indicated by the number of expired seconds in each frame agree. Lets call this number N.
Locally all clocks record the same number N regardless of their relative motions. And, if the
clock at x=0 in the SF agrees with a clock in the MF it will agree with all clocks in the MF
because these clocks are synchronized. We may say that that N represents an absolute location
in the temporal evolution of the cosmos.
On the other hand, when treating the VT as a coordinate transformation of GR we find a lineelement by which the scale in the MF is contracted so that dt=(1/)dt. These two different
interpretations of the VT correspond to two aspects of time, its pace and its apparent duration.
GR deals with the durations of seconds rather than with the elapsed time N. This means that
146

although the progression number N is the same, time intervals may appear to be different if the
scale of spacetime differs. This is what may happen when observing a moving frame where time
appears to run slower; the number of seconds is always the same but a time interval in a moving
frame may appear to be shorter due to scale contraction. If we dont realize this we may wrongly
interpret the shorter duration as being caused by a slower progression of time during motion.
However, current physics does not distinguish between these two aspects of time; in fact, GR
ignores the pace of time, merely comparing the relative durations of spacetime intervals. GR
compares coordinate increments by taking into account their relative, different, metrics. Thus GR
deals with the concept of relative durations, but not with the pace of time. Therefore GR cannot
model the progression of time or model motion as a dynamic process. An additional degree of
freedom (dimension) is needed corresponding to the pace of time, which in the thinking
presented here corresponds to the cosmological scale expansion process.
Clearly we need to take into account both the pace of time and the relative durations of time
intervals when modeling motion. In doing this we will find that time may progress at the same
pace everywhere, but that time intervals in moving frames may appear to be shorter. This is true
regardless of which frame is selected as being the SF. This situation cannot be captured by any
4D coordinate transformation since it also involves the dynamic relative scales of frames.
Here someone may object that time dilation is a fact that has been confirmed by numerous
experiments, so how can clocks still run at the same pace? The answer is that in the past we have
not taken into account the possibility of a fifth dimension in the form of a relative dynamic
spacetime scale that allows co-existence of different four-dimensional spacetimes. An object in
motion has its own co-moving local spacetime and experiences other objects in relative motion
as a projection onto this local spacetime. This means that the observed properties of a moving
object is apparent and not real.
As we will see this includes the observed velocity.

True and apparent velocity

147

The introduction of these two aspects of time helps resolve the contradictory treatment of time in
SR.
Consider the figure below.
Benom detta r4e

Figure 19: True and apparent velocity

The coordinate system on the left illustrates motion as it may be visualized in the stationary
frame, while the right hand side shows motion in a moving frame where the scale is relatively
contracted. If during the time T an object has moved the distance D in the SF we may set v=D/T.
Similarly we also have v=D/T since both D and T are contracted versions of D and T.
However, if motion in the MF takes place at velocity v an observer in the SF would see the
distance D when observing this motion rather than D, and conclude that the distance traveled is
shorter than D by the factor 1/. In order to actually observe the distance D the velocity in the
MF must be larger than v by the factor .
This leads to the following conclusion:
148

An object that appears to move at velocity v is actually moving with a true velocity v.
Note that this velocity is the relativistic velocity of SR, and that due to the different scales the
true relative velocity is not v but v. This difference between the real and perceived velocity is
caused by the speed of light c, which is a constant that relates time and space in the fourdimensional spacetime geometry of GR.
Since we are not used to the idea that motion causes relative scale contraction it is tempting to
think of motion in the stationary frame. However, this is a mental mistake since there can be no
motion of points in the local geometry of a reference frame. Furthermore, if motion implies
scale-contraction it rules out using the local metrics for the moving object as seen from the
stationary frame. In other words, as soon as there is motion the object ceases to exist in the local
stationary frame.
This makes it clear that 4D coordinate transformation cannot model motion.
Therefore, the VT might be seen as representing the projection of the moving geometry onto
the local frame. Although this point of view at first may seem strange it will become clear when
taking into account an additional scale dimension that allows co-existence of different fourdimensional spacetimes.
Motion causes moving frames to exist in different 4D manifolds.

An additional dimension beyond the four spacetime dimensions

By this reasoning we arrive at the somewhat surprising, and perhaps unsettling, proposition that
an additional dynamic degree of freedom of fundamental importance may exist beyond those of
space and time, and that this new degree of freedom might be the scale of spacetime. We may
think of it as an additional, independent, dimension beyond the four spacetime dimensions. We
already saw that modeling the progression of time demands this additional dimension.
Every inertial frame would then be associated with a separate, and local, 4D spacetime geometry,
while other inertial frames would be associated with their own local 4D geometries. Accelerating
from one velocity to another would mean that although the local Minkowskian geometries
149

remain the same, they differ in a relative sense via the scale dimension. Motion would then in
general involve transitioning in the scale of spacetime as well as in the four spacetime
dimensions. Like the arrow in Zenos arrow paradox, a moving object always remains at rest in
its local spacetime geometry.
During acceleration a moving observer would experience contracted frames in the past and
would consequently also experience a gravitational-type force directed backwards toward to
these past locations. This is the inertial force.
This would obviously be something completely new to science, but this new perspective should
not be ignored, because it could open the door to a new and better understanding of our world.
We noted that the VT implies that the temporal coordinate is the same for both the stationary
frame and the moving frame. However, an observer in the SF will see distances shorter in the
MF and will therefore be traveling farther in the MF in a given time than indicated by the
velocity v in the VT. Because of the metrical scale-contraction the velocity v used in the VT is
not the actual velocity experienced by a traveler in terms of distance per second.
Since the LT and the VT yield scale equivalent Minkowskian line-elements with the same
identical GR field equations they are, according to GR, physically equivalent. It may therefore
seem that it would not matter which representation we chose. However, the additional postulate
that the progression of time should be the same in all inertial frames favors the VT and results in
a different interpretation of several observed phenomena.
It also explains the origin of inertia.

Visualizing the additional scale-dimension

The scale perspective of inertial frames is symmetric and only depends on the relative velocity.
This is illustrated in Figure 20 by considering one-dimensional spaces imbedded in a twodimensions.

150

Figure 20: Illustrating an additional dimension

In the figure the four dimensions of spacetime are collapsed into a single dimension a line. The
page is two dimensional and thus adds one dimension. The two straight lines correspond to two
different 4D manifolds. Similarly a fifth dimension would allow different 4D spacetimes to
coexist, modeling different inertial frames as represented by the two 1D lines in the figure.
Acceleration causes transition between these frames of different relative scales, which might be
the origin of Inertia. In the figure this is illustrated by different orientations of the lines. In other
words, different 4D spacetimes may co-exist imbedded in a 5D manifold. The figure also shows
how an increment in a 1D (or 4D) space is projected onto a different co-existing space, the
projection being smaller by the square root of the inertial scale factor. This models time dilation
and length contraction in SR.
Furthermore, from this illustration it is clear that the projection of motion along one of the lines
is moving slower on the other line. When the two lines become close to perpendicular, motion on
151

one line may become arbitrary fast while its projection on the other line may remain quite slow.
This is also the case in 4D when the velocity approaches c, in fact the projected motion in time
stops completely at the velocity v=c when the lines are perpendicular. In SR this corresponds to
time-dilation and length-contraction proportional to the inertial scale factor, which approaches
zero when the v approaches c.
A one dimensional observer on the line may never directly experience the second dimension,
just like we, living in a 4D world, dont directly experience the 5th scale-dimension.

A few interesting consequences of relative scale contraction

If the scale of spacetime were to contract in a relative sense during acceleration it would have
observational consequences very similar to what SR predicts, which might explain why SR
currently is believed to be absolutely correct. However, the interpretations using SRs relativistic
time rather than a dynamic spacetime scale would differ.
First: If the scale contracts so that distances and time intervals appear shorter when in motion, an
observed velocity v in the stationary frame would, as already mentioned, not be the true velocity.
The SF observer sees distances contracted in the MF but uses her own temporal reference in
measuring the velocity, which means that the observed motion, as judged from the SF, appears to
be faster. Because of the length contraction the true velocity is v rather than v in terms of
distance covered per second.
A thought experiment may help clarifying the situation. Consider flying very fast above the
surface of a planet. If the velocity causes apparent relative scale contraction, distances between
mile posts on the surface would appear shorter and as a consequence we can cover a larger
distance per second. In other word, we fly faster than indicated by the velocity v.
This adjustment of our perspective would have the following interesting consequences:

The speed of light, c, would become and observational limit to how fast an object may
be seen to move, but would not constrain how far it might travel in a given time. It would

152

be possible to travel farther than a light-year in a year! (This is also true in SR due to time
dilation). This new interpretation would have the following additional consequences:

Since an object seen as moving at velocity v will move at a true velocity v=v its
momentum would be p=mv in agreement with SR and classical physics. Its mass would
not increase, but instead its true velocity would be higher than the observed velocity v.
The observed increase in mass would then be caused by a higher velocity rather than an
increased relativistic mass.

p m v " relativistic mass " v ( m0 ) v m0 ( v) m0 " truevelocity "

This would explain the apparent relativistic increase in mass as being due to a higher true
velocity and not due to some mysterious, unexplainable, mechanism that causes mass to
increase.

A traveler moving on a circular route, as considered by Einstein, would not be

younger upon returning, but would simply arrive back earlier than estimated from its
observed velocity v. There would be no difference in elapsed times between
observers, because clocks always run at the same pace, which would resolve the Twin
Paradox once and for all.

The Newtonian pre-relativistic concept of simultaneity would make its comeback;

atomic clocks may be used to define cosmological simultaneity as given by the same
readings on these clocks. This would obsolete the use of light signals for clock
synchronization.

By SR it is possible to travel farther in a given time than is indicated by the velocity

v, since the pace of time slows down during motion. The result would be the same
with the new interpretation, since the velocity increases by the same factor as time
slows down by SR.

The fraction of muons that survive the passage through the earths atmosphere would
be greater than expected simply due to their higher velocities and shorter transit
times.

153

In a Synchrotron the electrons may travel at 99.99999 percent of the speed of light.
They radiate at frequencies that match their rotation frequency. However, since their
true velocities are a factor larger than observed, the radiated frequencies are a factor
higher than the frequencies of the applied accelerating, rotating, field.

The progression of time and absolute time

Relative scale adjustment of four-dimensional spacetime during acceleration admits a common
pace of time for all moving objects while allowing temporal durations to be different in a relative
sense. Thus (the progression of) time may remain the same in all inertial frames while time still
may appear to run at a slower pace in moving frames. However, the slowing pace of time of
moving clocks is merely an apparent phenomenon caused by a diminished relative scale of
spacetime. As already mentioned this resolves the most serious and widely debated challenge to
special relativity the Twin Paradox.
The introduction of the metrical scale as an additional dynamic aspect of existence allows clear
differentiation between local spacetime geometry in a stationary frame and the relative spacetime
geometry in a moving frame, which in the past were thought to be identically the same. Now we
realize that moving frames appear scale-contracted.
An additional degree of freedom for motion in the form of a dynamic scale of four-dimensional
spacetime is implied by the cosmological expansion, which may act simultaneously across the
cosmos. This novel scale expansion process could explain the progression of time as being a
physical process beyond space and time, i.e. it is a dynamic physical process that does not
change the four-dimensional geometry as expressed by the line-element of GR. This explains
why the progression of time always has been so mysterious; we all realize that it somehow
involves motion in time rather than motion in space, but cannot visualize what this temporal
motion might be. The dynamic scale expansion of spacetime could be what makes time pass.
This new and previously unknown aspect of the world would of cause be of immense
importance and it seems strange that it has not been recognized earlier. However, it may soon
become obvious to us all.
154

The cosmological expansion with its steadily increasing scale acts simultaneously (non-locally)
unconstrained by the speed of light c. In principle this also provides a vehicle of synchronizing
clocks cosmologically and thus obsoletes the need to synchronize clocks via light signals as is
done by SR.
Newtons absolute time makes its comeback!

The photon as a particle

The nature of a photon has always been mysterious, it also puzzled Einstein. Here is a quote:
All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the question,
What are light quanta? Of course today every rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is
deluding himself.
Albert Einstein Drrenmat, p.35
Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein declared light a distortion through 5-dimensional space, a
clear Anschauung, that is, a hypothetical perception without any basis in known physics.
The new explanation of motion developed above may perhaps also shed some light (no pun
intended) on the photon, if this particle instead of moving at the speed c were to move at an
observed velocity v, slightly is less than but extremely close to c. Assume a very tiny virtual rest
mass for the photon m0. Its momentum would then be close to m0c (using its relativistic
velocity) and its energy close to E=m0c2=pc like it is in SR.
Almost all the energy of a photon would then be kinetic.
This would mean that all photons actually move at true velocities exceeding c, and that the
speed of light c is not the actual velocity of photons but rather a constant of nature that relates
time to space. The small size of the photon is now explained by scale contraction. And, like in
SR there is additional contraction in the direction of motion, which would explain the oscillating
electromagnetic field perpendicular to its motion.

155

This makes it possible to visualize a photon as a particle with a metrical field modulation similar
to the deBroglie matter-wave. In Chapter V of this monograph we saw that the deBroglie matter
wave might be explained as being modulation of the metrical scale of spacetime, which in the
VT (and LT) is given by the term:

vx / c2 0 x / c

(VI.12)

With a deBroglie wavelength x=, the time tm between the arrival of two consecutive deBroglie
wave crests satisfies:

0 vx / c2 0 x / c 0 / c 0 tm 2

(VI.13)

On the other hand the period tc of the Compton oscillation, which is associated with rest mass, is
given by:

0 tc 2

(VI.14)

Thus for a photon tm=tc, and the periods of these two waves, one being due to the temporal
Compton oscillation and the other one due to the spatial deBroglie matter-wave modulation,
coincide.
It therefore appears as if the photon has only one wave instead of two waves of different origin
the deBroglie wave and the Compton wave. This would explain its dual aspects of wave and
particle.
We also saw that the deBroglie wave may be identical to the quantum wave that guides particles
in for example the double slit experiment. This may also be true for the photon, which in this
aspect may behave just like ordinary particles. Therefore it is possible that a photon is a special
kind of particle with non-zero rest mass, although it is very, very, tiny.
Richard Feynman said this:
There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave ... in exactly the same way as photons; they
are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way...

156

We may inverse this comment and say that photons are particles that behave in exactly the same
way as electrons!
Thus, it appears that the photon may be explained as being a particle that behaves just like any
other particle. However, it should be noted that this ontological explanation for the photon
requires relative scale contraction during motion.
Therefore this explanation is not consistent with SR, which may explain Einsteins frustration.

Is Special Relativity right?

Asking if SR is right is similar to asking if the epicycles were right. If we only take into account
their ability to model the planetary motions as they appear on the night sky we might argue that
they did and excellent job in a positivistic sense. But, if we want to find out why the planets
move as they do we would not consider the epicycles to be right.
Similarly, the fact that SR agrees with our observations may makes us believe that this theory is
absolutely right, but if we would like to find an ontological explanation to why time runs slower
in motion, or if we want to find the origin of the phenomenon of Inertia, SR cannot be the last
word.
If we adopt Voigts transformation rather than Lorentzs it would mean that the observed scale of
spacetime is contracted in a relative sense for frames in motion, but that this apparent scale
contraction does not influence the local conditions in each frame.
This interpretation has three major advantages:
1. It resolves the Twin Paradox by recognizing that frames in relative motion are in
different spacetime manifolds.
2. It allows a common temporal reference (absolute cosmological time).
3. It explains the inertial force
It resolves the Twin Paradox since the diminished scale in a moving frame allows an observed
clock to run slower without influencing its local pace in the moving frame.

157

It allows a common temporal reference because moving frames are related via Voigts
transformation rather than Lorentzs.
And, it explains inertia as being a curved spacetime phenomenon induced by the dynamic
spacetime scale.
However, it has one drawback if you believe that the world may be described by standard
physics because it implies that the relative perspective between moving frames involves an
additional aspect in the form of a dynamic spacetime scale. Hence, it is no longer sufficient to
model relative motion merely via changing locations in four-dimensional spacetime; the
additional scale-dimension must also be taken into account.
Perhaps you wonder how SR has survived all the scrutiny over the hundred years since 1905.
The reason might be that Einsteins derivation is perfectly logical and correct as long as the
world is four-dimensional. Therefore, mathematical minds analyzing it have not found anything
wrong with it. However, the additional scale dimension opens up a new world.
The scientist is now confronted with the choice of either believing the math and Einstein and just
accept inconsistencies, or acknowledge that something is not quite right with SR, as Herbert
Dingle did.

Final comments on Motion, Inertia, Special Relativity

When Einstein introduced Special Relativity in 1905 the Lorentz Transformation had already
been proposed by Henrik Lorentz and Henri Poincar, which helped pave the way for his theory.
By the Principle of Relativity the pace of time should locally be the same in all inertial frames,
yet according to the SR theory it differs in moving frames. This is an inconsistency that from the
very beginning has been at the center of controversy. Obviously, a theory that claims that the
time is the same in all inertial frames (due to the Principle of Relativity), but also claims that it is
different in moving frames cannot be quite right.
The new theory proposed here eliminates this problem by introducing an additional aspect of
existence in the form of a relative scale of inertial frames, which makes it possible to clearly
158

differentiate between the spacetime geometries of local and relative observers. All inertial
observers may experience the same pace of time in their own local inertial frames, but see time
(apparently) run slower in moving frames due to their scale difference. By this development the
scale of spacetime becomes an additional dimension beyond the four spacetime dimensions,
and we might rightly wonder if this additional complication really is warranted.
There are at least three weighty considerations in support of this new aspect of existence:
First: It would explain the inertial force as being due to induced spacetime curvature caused by a
changing relative scale during acceleration.
Second: It would make possible the existence of a common cosmological pace of time; Newtons
absolute time could make its come-back.
Third: It would eliminate the speed of light as an ultimate velocity constraint for space travel.
These advantages are substantial and should justify further investigation of the new scale
dimension. We know that the absence of a common pace of time is in conflict with non-local
influences in quantum theory, and that it puts into question uniform cosmological aging. Clearly,
the speed of light, c, cannot be a universal velocity constraint for influences. And imposing a
theoretical constraint on how far we may travel in given time seems unreasonable. (In this
context it is amusing to note that the cherished warp speed of Science Fiction may find its
justification in new physics, since all acceleration contracts, or warps, the metrical scale of
spacetime in a relative sense.)
The SR theory is the best we can do if our existence actually were confined to the four
dimensions of space and time. But, this might not be the case; at least one additional
dimension may exist in the form of a dynamic scale, a possibility that should not be
overlooked. It may open up new avenues of research, which could lead to deeper understanding.
A dynamic spacetime scale could enter physics as an additional degree of freedom beyond the
four dimensions of space and time.
The main objective of this chapter on motion is to put forward this possibility, trusting that it will
be subjected to unbiased scrutiny.
159

Chapter VII: Summary of this monograph

The main objective of science is to help us grasp the world in the context of what we believe is
known and well understood. This is why mathematics plays such an important role in physics.
Mathematics is a very structured language based on what is considered known beyond any
reasonable doubt, for example 2+2=4. So, if we can explain our world using this language it
seems that such explanations must be correct.
However, this is not necessarily the case.
The problem with this approach is that Nature may not be restricted to using the building blocks
we use in formulating our mathematical theories. In other words, the information based on a set
of axioms may not be the same as the information based on a different set of axioms.
The SEC model is an example of this. Adding the fifth scale-dimension to the previous four
dimensions of time and space allows a new and fundamentally different understanding of the
world that better agrees with our observations. The additional mathematics resulting from adding
this new dimension explains a number of previously unexplainable aspects ranging from the
previously mysterious creation of the world from nothingness to Dark Energy and Dark Matter,
which both turn out to be artifacts of restricted mathematics. In other words, Dark Energy and
Dark Matter no longer exist as previously imagined.
Thus it appears that the main problem with the current thinking is that it ignores the possibility
that the scale of existence may change with time. This is why the progression of time always has
been enigmatic. Time may progress by changing the scale of existence!
By the new thinking proposed in this monograph we step out of a four-dimensional world into a
richer five-dimensional world that better agrees with how we experience our world.
The line of reasoning presented in this monograph gradually evolved over a twenty year period
while single-mindedly probing the limits of our current understanding. During this extended
effort it became clear that an interesting possibility may have been overlooked in the past,
suggesting that an additional degree of freedom for motion might exist in the form of a dynamic
160

scale of four-dimensional spacetime. At first this may be hard to accept, because this idea is new
and unfamiliar. It challenges several preconceptions deeply rooted in our world-view and in the
very foundation of modern science.
This work challenges both the seasoned reader and the layman, who both may be unprepared for
these new ideas. Yet, the progression of time has always been mysterious to us and subjected to
much speculation; it is the most keenly experienced aspect of our existence, yet its origin has in
the past remained unknown.
Obviously, if we cannot explain the passage of time there is no hope to ever understand the
universe.
The finding that cosmological scale expansion of both space and time may explain what is
causing the progression of time should be of great interest to us all.
This work has been one of love with many highlights and moments of awe and joy when
discovering something new and unexpected. Some specialists may consider the development of
this monograph too simpleminded, or that it is pushing the limits of what presently is
considered acceptable. However, Copernicus idea of a moving Earth was also very
simpleminded compared to the 80 or more epicycles of the Ptolemaic model, and it also pushed
the limits of acceptability.
Let me just recall a few highlights during the development of this new world-view.

In 1993 an idea occurred to me: That there is no predetermined scale of existence. Worlds
of different scales should appear identical to their inhabitants. This claim is supported by
GR since its field equations are identical for spacetimes of different scale.

Cosmological scale-equivalence became a fundamental postulate for the SEC model.

This suggested that the cosmological scale of spacetime might expand and that this is the
nature of the cosmological expansion.

The ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides argued that something cannot be created out
of nothingness, therefore the universe must exist perpetually.

If existence is perpetual, the scale of the cosmos should expand geometrically

(exponentially) since all epochs then would become scale-equivalent with identical
161

spacetime geometries in GR. And, since the cosmos currently is assumed to be about 14
billion years old (the Hubble Time), the time constant for this exponential cosmological
scale expansion ought to be the Hubble Time.

This suggested the Minkowskian line-element with an exponentially increasing scale as

the SEC line-element.

This would imply that the cosmos would seem to be 14 billion years old regardless of
epoch.

The Hubble Time becomes a cosmological constant that has nothing to do with the age of
the universe.

This would also eliminate the troublesome creation event, which is the major problem
with the SCMs Big Bang model.

Einsteins critical density appears in the energy-momentum tensor for the SEC lineelement as its temporal component, and the three spatial components appear as part of his
Cosmological Constant. This would explain both the Dark Energy and the accelerating
expansion as being a direct consequence of the cosmological scale-expansion. Thus the
Dark Energy might be curved spacetime energy rather than some exotic, unknown,
particles.

The distance-redshift relation for the SEC line-element and the corresponding apparent
luminosity relation allow testing the SEC using astronomical observations at
cosmological distances. The SEC model excellently agrees with three different
cosmological tests; the number count test, the angular size test and the surface brightness
test.

The SCM model fails all of them.

Furthermore, the SEC model also agrees with the supernovae 1a observations without
having to speculate on Dark Energy or a Cosmological Constant.

However, since the scale increases for the four-dimensional SEC line-element of GR it
would imply that the geometry of the universe changes with time. This violates scaleequivalence and perpetual existence by which the world geometry should always remain
the same independent of time.
Therefore the four-dimensional spacetime of GR cannot model the SEC.
162

This apparent disadvantage of the SEC model may be formally overcome by assuming
that the cosmological scale may change incrementally while reproducing the fourdimensional spacetime geometry at increasing scales in a stepwise fashion. This is the
process of Discrete Incremental Scale Transition (DIST), which conserves the 4D world
geometry by scale-equivalence.

A dynamic scale of spacetime would then enter physics as a new fundamental degree of
freedom, suggesting a five-dimensional cosmos model in GR.

This also suggests that Theodor Kaluzas five-dimensional GR, whereby he derived
Maxwells equations, actually may have been our first hint of a more complete fivedimensional world.

The incremental DIST process also suggests a connection with Quantum Mechanics via
the oscillating spacetime scale modeled by the DIST process. David Bohms version of
QM may be derived from GR if the metrics of the Minkowskian line-element were to
oscillate at the Compton frequency!

This merges QM with GR, and suggests the QM wave functions are modulation of the
scale of spacetime!

Since the time of Newton the origin of the inertial force appearing in his second law of
motion has been mysterious. With an Inertial Scale Factor applied to the Minkowskian
line-element the inertial force may be explained as being a curved spacetime
phenomenon akin to gravitation:
Inertial Scale Factor = 1 (v / c)2

With the square of this scale-factor applied to the Minkowskian line-element all
accelerating motions will take place on geodesics of GR!

This suggests that inertial frames of Special Relativity might be in different manifolds of
GR separated by relative scale.

This would revise Special Relativity without altering its observational aspects while
offering an explanation to inertia. It would also indisputably resolve the Twin Paradox,
since the time observed in a moving frame may appear to differ from the local time
because of its relative scale difference.

Furthermore, it would allow an absolute cosmological time.

163

All these findings are of course new and may perhaps seem a bit hard to digest, but if at least a
few of them turn out to have merit they will revolutionize science. Newtons first law of motion
and his law of gravitation would be invalidated on cosmological scales of space and time. It
would also revise Special Relativity and merge GR with QM.
The cosmos might be a thermodynamically open system in which energy induced by a slowing
pace of time unendingly flows to its expanding space while keeping the net energy zero. This is
made possible by a cosmological scale expansion that conserves the geometry of the fourdimensional spacetime.
The progression of time, which mirrors this cosmological scale expansion, and is keenly felt by
all living beings, assumes its rightful place as being the foremost of all physical processes.
In retrospect it is interesting to note that Newton could not answer what might carry gravitational
influences across empty space. He left this question open. And, Faraday suggested that some
kind of field carries the magnetic force and made metal filings line up on a paper above a
magnet. This field idea gained further momentum from Maxwells equations that described
electromagnetic actions.
General Relativity suggested a possible explanation for gravitational influences, and the term
gravitational field was coined. However, GR also offered an explanation to the nature of this
field; it was caused by spacetime curvature, i. e. by coordinate metrics that change with
location. The electromagnetic field and the gravitational field became separate and different
entities that acted in a background of space and time.
Then Theodor Kaluza showed that Maxwells equations were a consequence of a certain fivedimensional version of GR. However, people, including Einstein himself, could not understand
how this derivation of Maxwells equation from GR was possible. Kaluzas finding further
developed by Oskar Klein became known as the Kaluza-Klein miracle. It appears that nobody
understood the deeper significance of this development, which may have been our first indication
that the world has more dimensions than just the four of spacetime.

164

Quantum Theory further complicated this world-view by adding field-like wave functions with
unusual properties, since they were believed to represent probability densities rather than
something physical, and acted non-locally.
Now it seems that this rather confusing scenario is about to change. It is possible that nothing
else exists than the four dimensions of spacetime together with the scale of spacetime acting as a
dynamic fifth dimension. There is no substance or any tiny fundamental particle at the very
core of material existence. It is possible that the world is nothing but dynamic hyperspace
geometry energized by the progression of time. All fields and all matter may be modulations of
the metrical properties of this 5D hyperspace.
During the twentieth century we lost the ancient vision of a world of unmatched simplicity, selfsustained in perpetual existence, a world without beginning or end, in favor of a world created
some 14 billion years ago, which is doomed to perish in the future.
However, we may now return to the belief in a world without limits in space or time, a world of
meaning and unlimited possibilities in which we all can feel at home.
There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.
Leo Tolstoy

APPENDICES
Appendix I: Deriving the free geodesic in the SEC and Cosmic Drag
The General Relativity geodesic relations are given by:
dx dx
d 2 x

0
2
ds ds
ds

(A1.1)

Consider the SEC line-element:

ds 2 e2t /T (dt 2 dr 2 r 2d 2 r 2 sin2 ( ) d 2 )

(AI.2)

The Christoffel symbols are:

165

000 1/ T ;

0
11
1/ T ;

022 r 2 / T ;

033 r 2 sin2 ( ) / T

1
101 10
1/ T

122 r

133 r sin 2 ( )

2
02
220 1 / T

2
12
221 1 / r

2
33
sin( ) cos( )

303 330 1 / T

3
13
331 1 / r

323 332 cos( ) / sin( )

(A1.3)

All other Christoffel symbols are zero. The geodesic equations are:
1 dt
dr
d
d
[( ) 2 ( ) 2 r 2 ( ) 2 r 2 sin 2 ( ) ( ) 2 ]
T ds
ds
ds
ds
ds
d 2t
2

d 2r
ds

ds

ds

(A1.4)

2 dt dr
d
d
( )( ) r ( ) 2 r sin 2 ( ) ( ) 2
T ds ds
ds
ds

(A1.5)

2 dt d
2 d dr
d
( )( ) ( )( ) sin( ) cos( ) ( )
T ds ds
r ds ds
ds

(A1.6)

2 dt d
2 d dr
cos( ) d d
( )( ) ( )( ) 2
( )( )
T ds ds
r ds ds
sin( ) ds ds

(A1.7)
The first terms on the right hand side model a new physical phenomenon Cosmic Drag.
For the radial geodesic with d=d=0 relation (AI.5) becomes:

d 2r
2 dr dt

2
ds
T ds ds

(AI.8)

Integrating with K as an integration constant:

dr
K e 2t /T (AI.9)
ds

Setting =(dr/dt)/c we get from the line-element:

ds
e t /T 1 2
dt

(AI.10)

From this and (AI.9) we have:

dr dr dt

e t /T K e 2/T (AI.11)
2
ds dt ds
1

Where K is given by:

0
1 02

(AI.12)

Solving for :
166

0 et / T

1 02 02 e2t / T

(A1.13)

is the velocity of a free particle on a geodesic in the SEC.

Note also that:

1 2

0
e t /T
2
1 0

(AI.14)

The relativistic velocity decreases exponentially with time in the SEC.

If the velocity of a particle initially equals the speed of light, it will always remain the speed of light:

0 1 1 for all t.

(AI.15)

However, for small velocities this becomes:

1 0et /T v v0 et /T

(A1.16)

This is the cosmic drag relation by which relative velocities of freely moving objects diminish over
time. According to (AI.14) this relation also holds for relativistic velocities.
Similarly we find by setting d=0 in (A1.6) that the angular momentum decreases with time in the
SEC. Proceeding as above we get:

r2 2

r04 0 2 (1 r 2 ) e 2t /T
r 2 [1 r02 ( r0 0 )2 ] r 40 0 2 e 2 t /T

(A1.17)

For velocities much smaller than the speed of light this becomes:

r 2 r02 0 et /T

(AI.18)

Angular momentums decrease exponentially over time in the SEC.

The length of a geodesic, Lr, for a freely moving particle with non-zero rest mass is finite and may be
obtained by integrating (A1.13) from zero to infinity:

1 0
Lr T ln

1 0

(A1.19)

According to relation (II.13) in the main text:

167

Lr T ln(1 z )

(A1.21)

Therefore:

z 1

1 0
1 0

(AI.20)

Thus the cosmological redshift after the source has come to complete rest equals its initial Doppler
shift! It may be shown that the redshift remains the same while changing from Doppler shift to
cosmological redshift.
In Minkowskian spacetime this motion would correspond to constant velocity (except for the loss of
signal strength with increasing distance). This also shows that the expanding space absorbs kinetic
energy in the SEC while four-dimensionally keeping the net energy constant via the slowing
progression of time.

Appendix II: Ephemeris Time and Universal Time

Ephemeris Time (ET) is based on the motion of the Earth around the Sun while Universal Time (UT)
is based on the rotation of the Earth. UT is essentially the same as solar time. ET drifts positive at an
accelerating rate and will in one century advance by about 30 seconds relative to UT. This difference
between ET and UT is usually explained as being caused by a slowing rotation of the Earth caused
by tidal braking action due to gravitational influences from the Moon and the Sun.
However, with the SEC theory there could be another explanation since this theory predicts that the
angular motion of the Earth around the Sun accelerates in proportion to exp(t/T) with t=atomic time
and that the rotation of the Earth slows down in proportion to exp(-t/T). The difference between ET
and UT could therefore be interpreted as being at least partly caused by cosmic drag.
The Suns acceleration due to cosmic drag causes ephemeris time to accelerate relative to atomic
time. For small time intervals t<<T we have:

( ET AT ) sun

t 2
t 2
Teph t t
t
2T
2T

(AII.1)
The spin-down of the Earth also contributes by:

(UT AT )Earth

t 2
2T

(AII.2)

Together this gives:

168

 ET UT Cosmic Drag

t 2
T

(AII.3)

With T=14 billion year this difference becomes 21 seconds per century and with T=10 billion years
30 seconds/cy.
In addition the Earths rotation might slow down due to tidal friction, which could account for the
remaining difference between this estimate and the actually observed 30 seconds/cy.
This suggests that the difference between ET and UT mainly could be due to cosmic drag rather than
tidal friction.

Appendix III: Deriving Quantum Mechanics from General Relativity

In this appendix Quantum Mechanics (QM) is used instead of QT to denote the theory based on the
Schrdinger equation (and Heisenbergs matrix approach).
The fact that the link between GR and QM has been missing ever since the beginning of the
development of quantum theory suggests that this connection perhaps cannot be found within the
four-dimensional spacetime of GR. However, this is not true because the derivation below is made
using standard GR. In other words, the derivation does not use knowledge beyond current physics
except in one respect; it assumes that the metrical scale of spacetime for a particle oscillates.
Although an inhabitant in the SEC may not locally experience the scale-expansion on a macroscopic
level, the DIST process suggests that the scale of spacetime may oscillate, and this possibility
became the starting point for this investigation. As we will see it leads to a link between GR and QM.
It requires the following three assumptions:
A1: The 4D scale of a particle confined to a small volume oscillates at the Compton frequency.
A2. The spacetime of a particle in motion may be modeled by the Minkowskian line-element
modulated by an oscillating scale at the Compton frequency.
A3. The linear part of the Ricci scalar of GR for this oscillating line-element disappears.
These three assumptions allow QM to be derived from GR.

169

Consider the Minkowskian line-element with c=1 modulated by a dynamic scale:

ds 2 e2 g (t , x, y , z ) dt 2 dx2 dy 2 dz 2

(AIII.1)

Let us assume that the function g() may be factored into a spatial and an oscillating temporal part:
Re 2Ch x , y , z e it
ds 2 e
dt 2 dx2 dy 2 dz 2 (AIII.2)

The use of a complex exponent is to be interpreted as the real part, for example exp(-it ) means
cos(t) and i exp(-it) means sin(t). The reason we can do this is that all relations derived in the
following are linear so that their real and imaginary parts may be separated. The complex exponential
also simplifies the derivation and leads to results familiar from QM.
In the following the label Re( ) is omitted.
Since the following derivation formally uses standard differential methods in 4D spacetime I will use
the Lorentz transformation instead of Voigts transformation (combined with scale adjustments),
because SR with its Lorentz transformation is the best we can do in four dimensions. Also, this will
demonstrate that a link between GR and QM exists even with currently known physics.
With these preliminaries let us first consider motion of a spatially confined volume modeled by the
line-element (AIII.2). With constant velocity v in the x-direction the Lorentz transformation is with
c=1:

x x ' vt '
t t ' vx '

(AIII.3)

1
1 v2

The modulating part of the exponent in the metric then becomes:

2Ceit 2Cei (vx 't ')

(AIII.4)

If the modulation is confined to a particle, the spatial modulation in (AIII.4) is reminiscent of the
quantum mechanical wave function of a moving particle with wave number:
k v

(AIII.5)

Thus, motion of a spatial volume with oscillating metrics has the effect of spatially modulating the
phase of this oscillation.

170

Furthermore, every particle is associated with scale excitation at the relativistic Compton frequency
given by:
m

2 f

(AIII.6)

Since c=1 this relation is the familiar E=mc2=hf where f is the relativistic Compton frequency.
The relationship between the momentum and the wave number is:
p k mv (AIII.7)

According to (AIII.4) motion would cause the Compton oscillation to become phase modulated
and create a spatial wave in the metrical scale of spacetime, exp(ikx).
Thus, if Compton oscillation in the scale of spacetime is associated with every particle this oscillation
will during motion be accompanied by a metrical matter-wave. This would provide support for de
Broglies two-wave idea. There is one particle-wave that could be the Compton oscillation
associated with a particles motion in time, the other could be the deBroglie matter-wave associated
with its motion in space. Both these quantum mechanical waves would then be modulations of the
metrical scale of spacetime.
With this interpretation the quantum mechanical matter-wave is a relativistic phenomenon; it is a
spatial wave in the metrical scale of spacetime induced by motion. Since the wave number of the
matter-wave depends on the very high Compton frequency corresponding to a particles matter
energy, this small relativistic effect becomes significant even at relatively low velocities.
This interpretation would resolve the wave-particle duality since these two aspects are inseparable;
the matter-wave is a direct consequence of the Compton oscillation and of a particles motion.
The previously mysterious fact that a particle behaves both as a wave and a particle, might find its
natural explanation. Traditionally we think of a particle as something material and indivisible, but
this might be wrong. Particles could be nothing but standing wave oscillations in the spacetime
metrics that are sustained by the cosmological scale-expansion. Motion in time (and scale) might
induce their Compton oscillation. This new understanding would also obsolete Bohrs Principle of
Complementarity by providing an ontological explanation to the dual wave/particle nature.
Bohm and his followers have shown that a consistent quantum mechanical theory may be derived
based on just three conditions:

171

C1. There exists a function, (of unspecified ontology), which satisfies Schrdinger's wave
equation.
C2. A particles momentum p satisfies the relation:

p = Im

(AIII.8)

Im stands for the imaginary part. This expression is often referred to as the deBroglie/Bohm pilot
function.
C3. The motion is subjected to random disturbance.

A link between GR and QM will now be established by demonstrating that these three conditions
may be derived from GR if the metrical scale oscillates. I will first show that the pilot function may
be derived from the geodesic relation of GR.
Consider the scaled Minkowskian line element with a general dynamic scale function :

ds 2 2 t, x, y, z dt 2 dx 2 dy 2 dz 2

(AIII.9)

I will first show how the deBroglie/Bohm pilot-wave may be derived from the geodesic of GR. The
geodesic equation of GR is:

d 2 x
dx dx

0
ds 2
ds ds

(AIII.10)

For the x-coordinate this relation becomes with indices given by x0=t, x1=x, x2=y and x3=z:
2

d 2x
dt
1 dx
1 dy
100 11
22
2
ds
ds
ds
ds
2

dz
1 dt dx
1 dx dy
1 dx dz
133 210
212 213
ds
ds ds
ds ds
ds ds
2

dt
1 dx
1 dy
100 11
22
ds
ds
ds

(AIII.11)

dz
dx 1 dt 1 dx 1 dy 1 dz
133 2 10
11 12 13
ds
ds ds
ds
ds
ds
2

We have:

172

d 2 x d dx dt d dx dt dt

ds 2 ds dt ds dt dt ds ds
d 2 x dt dx d dt dt
2
dt ds dt dt ds ds
2

(AIII.12)

From the line element (AIII.9):

dt
1
dx

; where v x 2 y 2 z 2 and x
ds 1 v 2
dt

(AIII.13)

The bracket factor in the last term of (AIII.4) therefore is:

d dt

vv

v v dt

3/2
1 v 2 2 ds
dt ds
2 1 v 2 1 v 2

dt

(AIII.14)

We may get rid of the dependence on s by dividing all terms in the geodesic by (dt/ds)2. Rewriting
the last term of (AIII.12) by using (AIII.14):
2
d dt dt x
x vv dt

dt ds ds
1 v2 ds

(AIII.15)

The geodesic relation may now be written:

2

x
x vv dt

Right hand side of (AIII.11)

x

1 v 2 ds

(AIII.16)

The right hand side may also be written:

1 2
100 11
x 122 y 2 133 z 2 dt 2

1
1
1
1
2 x 10 11 x 12 y 13 z ds

(AIII.17)

The Christoffel symbols are:

173

100 111 122 133

1

;
y
1
12

1
x

1

;
z
1
13

1

t

(AIII.18)

1
10

Substituting this into the bracket of (AIII.17):

2

x y2 z2

1 x x

2 x dt x x y y z

1 v 2 2 x
x

(AIII.19)

Together with (AIII.16) we get:

x vv
1

1 v 2 x
2

1 v x

(AIII.20a)

Similarly for the other two components:

y

y vv
1
2

1 v2 y

(AIII.20b)

z vv
1

1 v 2 z
2

1 v z

(AIII.20c)

Combining these we get in vector notations:

v x, y , z
v

v vv
1
1 v 2 v

1 v

(AIII.21a)

Reintroducing c:
v

v vv
1
c 2 v 2 v
2
2
c v

(AIII.21b)

174

Now consider the scale function and c=1:

eChexp

it

(AIII.22)

We get:

h

v vv
it h
2

e
1

v (AIII.23)
1 v2
h

h

The very rapid modulation of the phase with changing velocity, -v, which is implied by the
imaginary term within the bracket, disappears if:

h
h
1 v2 v

h
h

v Im

(AIII.24)

Finally since m :

h
h
mv p Im 1 v 2 v
h
h

(AIII.25a)

This is the relativistic version of the deBroglie-Bohm pilot wave function.

The last term in the bracket is very small if v<<c and we get then get the usual deBroglie-Bohm pilot
wave function:
h
mv p Im
h

(AIII.25b)

We also have:

h
v vv
h
C h eit Re 1 v 2 v
2
h
1 v
h

(AIII.26)

According to the last relation there is random acceleration excitation.

Example: We saw that for motion in the x-direction we have:

175

h ei xv ;
h
h
dx 2

mv p Im
1 v 2 v v 1 v 2
v v mv

h
dt

(AIII.27)

If the complex function h(x,y,z), which modulates the Compton oscillation, is proportional to the
quantum mechanical wave function , relation (AIII.25) is the de Broglie/Bohm momentum
relation, i.e. the pilot function[Bohm, 1952]. Therefore the pilot function may be derived from
GRs geodesic relation.

The two relations (AIII.25) and (AIII.26) speak volumes about the ontological nature of QM. If the
metrical scale of a particle oscillates it will be subjected to cyclic disturbance that depends on the
spatial scale function h that modulates the oscillation. And, the particle tends to move in the direction
of increasing magnitudes for h. Also, this motion will disappear when the slope of h disappears, i. e.
where h disappears. The particle converges toward peaks of the wave function.
This provides an ontological explanation to the deBroglie-Bohm's guiding function; it may be
derived directly from the geodesic equation of GR if the spacetime of a particle oscillates at the
Compton frequency. Thus, the previously mysterious guiding action without any applied force
finds its physical explanation if a particle always is accompanied (and sustained) by oscillation of the
spacetime metrical scale at the Compton frequency.
This fulfills conditions C2 and C3 with h=.

The Schrdinger equation may also be derived from GR based on the assumption A4 the Ricci scalar
for the line-element should disappear. This assumption is reasonable since it is satisfied if the energymomentum tensor for vacuum disappears. (I will in this derivation ignore the small contribution from
cosmological expansion.) A necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the Ricci scalar to disappear
is a wave equation for the function g of (AIII.1) [Masreliez, 2005a]:

g ( t , x, y , z )

2
g ( t , x, y , z ) 0
t 2

(AIII.28)

Here is the Laplace operator. Consider the g-function:

i ( 1V / m dsn
g C h x, y, z e i E / t e

(AIII.29)
176

As before the temporal oscillation is at the Compton frequency, and that this oscillation is confined to
a small spatial volume.
The corresponding line-element is:
i ( 1V / m ds n
dt 2 dx 2 dy 2 dz 2
ds 2 exp 2 C h x, y, z e i E / t e

(AIII.30)

In the line integral ds is a path increment vector and n a unity velocity vector corresponding to
motion at the speed of light. This form may seem contrived but leads to the Schrdinger equation.
Lets analyze it.
The energy E is assumed to be constant and may be seen as giving a frequency adjustment to the
Compton oscillation, while the potential function V(x,y,z) adjusts the phase of the deBroglie matterwave. We will assume both these influences are much smaller than the mass energy:
E m
V m

(AIII.31)

The line integral corresponds to the deBroglie matter-wave; dsn corresponds to the product xv in
(AIII.4). The line element (AIII.30) therefore models motion that is influenced by a variations of the
Compton frequency given by E and phase modulations of the deBroglie mater-wave given by V.
Replacing the line integral with a sum of segments indexed by i and assuming that the vectors ni on
these segments are constant:
I ( x, y, z )

1 V / m ds n 1 V / m xi nxi yi nyi zi nzi

x, y , z

x0 , y0, z0

(AIII.32)

If the intervals are small, differentiation of this sum with respect to x may be approximated by the
contribution from the last term in the sum:
I I ( x, y, z )

1 V / m nxi
x
x

(AIII.33)

After a second differentiation of the exponent in the integral and adding the contributions from y and
z we get the term:

1 V / m

2
x

n 2y nz2 1 V / m

(AIII.34)

We therefore find, after carrying out the differentiations in (AIII.28) that the Ricci scalar disappears
if the following two relations hold:
Terms not containing ni:
177

2
V 2
E
2 h 2 1 1
h 0

m

(AIII.35)

Terms containing ni:

V h V

2(1 )
+
ni = 0
m h
m

(AIII.36)

Using (AIII.31) we have:

2

2V V
V
V
1 m 1 m m 1 2 m (AIII.37)
2

E
E E
E

1 1 2 m m 1 2 m

(AIII.38)

Substituting these in (AIII.32) we get the Schrdinger equation:

2m

2h V E h 0

(AIII.39)

This derivation may easily be generalized to the situation where the wave function h also depends on
time. We then get the additional terms:

E h 2h
h

2i 2 2i
t

t t
2
h
h

2i
i
2m
t
t

(AIII.40)

Moving this term to the right hand side of (AIII.36)

2m

2h V E h i

h
t

(AIII.41)

This is the time dependent Schrdinger equation.

A similar derivation of the Schrdinger equation for the electromagnetic field may be found in
[Masreliez, 2005].
The relation (AIII.32) does not depend on the velocity vectors ni.
The Schrdinger equation applies regardless of a particles motion.
Furthermore, if relation (AIII.3) is satisfied for ni it is also satisfied for ni. Therefore, the
Schrdinger equation applies even for a particle at rest subjected to back and forth motion. In other
words, the mere presence of an oscillating volume (particle) at some location creates a response from
178

its environment given by the wave functions of QM, which could be modulations of the metrics of
spacetime. This may influence the subsequent motion of the particle, and since this influence takes
place via the metrics it could be non-local, allowing instantaneous influences independent of
separation distance.
In other words, Schrdinger equation does not model motion but models resonance conditions in the
metrics of spacetime that depend on geometry, energies, and fields.
This development shows that if the scale of spacetime oscillates at the Compton frequency the
Schrdinger equation is a necessary condition for the disappearance of the Ricci scalar of GR. The
finding that the deBroglie-Bohm pilot function and the Schrdinger equation both may be derived
from GR and that there also is random influence implies that Bohms conditions C1, C2 and C3 are
all satisfied.
In other words, QM may be derived from GR.
Furthermore, it suggests that the quantum mechanical wave functions may have physical meaning;
they could correspond to modulation of the Compton oscillation of the scale of spacetime.
This would allow us to merge GR and QM into a single more complete theory, ending their centurylong estrangement. The probabilistic interpretation of QM could then be abandoned in favor of new
physics based on dynamic spacetime metrics. The behavior of the quantum world would no longer
be something mysterious and probabilistic but would be a consequence of influences via the dynamic
scale of spacetime exited by the cosmological scale expansion.
This implies a direct link between the QM and the SEC model.
Although you may appreciate this ontological explanation to quantum mechanics it must be admitted
that it currently does not address several aspects of the quantum world, for example spin, and it
may therefore be ignored by mainstream experts who in the spirit of the Copenhagen school consider
any ontological explanation unnecessary or even undesirable. But, like the epicycles of the past
described the motions of the planets without giving any answer to the question why, the currently
popular purely mathematical, and probabilistic, approach to quantum theory (including string theory)
may not contribute as much to our understanding of the world as even a simplistic ontological
explanation will. When Copernicus presented his moving Earth model it did not model the motions
of the planets with the same accuracy as the epicycles. However, it still became the preferred

179

explanation because of its simplicity. The connection between QM and the SEC model might
provide us with a deeper understanding of the world.
Einstein was right; God does not play dice.

Appendix IV: Speculation on the Nature of Motion

How does a particle move? Does it jump incrementally or does it change its dimensions and
move like an inchworm? It turns out that Appendix III together with the explanation to the
inertial force may offer a possible ontological explanation.
Consider again the 5D hyperspace line element:
ds 2 u 2 (dt 2 dx 2 dy 2 dz 2 ) T du

(AIV.1)

We may think of the 4D SEC cosmos as moving in this 5D hyperspace space on a null-geodesic
with the fifth dimension, u, playing the role of time. This line-element has two terms. The last
term disappears if u is constant and the 5D line-element then collapses into the line-element for
scale-equivalent 4D spacetime. On the other hand, motion in the 4D spacetime at the speed of
light will cause the first term to disappear allowing motion purely in the fifth dimension, which
may model scale transition. Spatial motion at the speed of light implies that time stands still in
4D spacetime, which makes the scale transition appear instantaneous.
This suggests that the incremental scale transition of the DIST process might be associated with
motion in 4D spacetime at the speed of light.
Chapter VI on motion suggests that the spacetime scale for an accelerating particle contracts by
the inertial factor 1-v2, and that relative to a co-accelerating observer this scale is incrementally
reset via the DIST process to keep the line-element locally Minkowskian.
Consider the hyperspace line-element:
ds 2 u 2 1 v 2 (dt 2 dx 2 dy 2 dz 2 ) T du

(AIV.2)

We may think of acceleration as occurring in two steps:

180

In the first step the scale contracts continuously via the inertial scale factor while the scale u
remains constant u=1 and du=0. In this first step the world is 4D spacetime since the last term in
(AIV.2) disappears. This step may be modeled by GR.
In the second step there is spatial transition at the speed of light while the scale adjusts u=>1/(1v2) thus resetting the 4D scale to one. In this second step, which corresponds to the discrete
scale transition in the DIST process, the first term equals zero and the motion is solely in scale.
We find that motion may take place by alternately switching between motion in spacetime and
motion in the fifth scale-dimension.
This somewhat speculative ontological explanation would imply that all motion takes place via
transitions both in 4D spacetime and in five-dimensional hyperspace. The reader familiar with
Richard Feynmans checkerboard approach to quantum theory may sense a connection here since
he showed that random walks in space and time at the speed of light leads to Diracs famous
equation for the electron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_checkerboard
When deriving the Schrdinger equation in appendix III an increment of the line-integral
(AIII.32) was expressed as the scalar product of a displacement vector, ds, and a unit velocity
vector, n, which corresponds to motion at the speed of light. Dividing this line-element into
number of short segments each modeling motion at the speed of light allowed the Schrdinger
equation to be derived from GR.
However, with the 5D line-element (AIV.2) we now find that incremental motion at the speed of
light may be associated with changes in the fifth dimension that resets the dynamic scale and
models the discrete scale adjustment of the DIST process. As we saw this scale adjustment
appears to be instantaneous to an observer. It is therefore possible that particles always move in
tiny rapid steps at the speed of light combined with simultaneous scale adjustments, and that the
velocity we observe macroscopically merely is the projection of all these numerous increments
in the direction of motion. The DIST loop may coincide with the Compton oscillation,
supporting the proposition that the Compton oscillation, which is associated with all particles,
takes place in the scale of spacetime.
181

Since a displacement at the speed of light occurs instantaneously, the particle may be seen as
being at two different locations in 4D spacetime at the same time. And, if the spatial
displacement of each of these increments is comparable to the wavelength of the Compton
oscillation it would be consistent with Heisenbergs uncertainty relation. This suggests the
intriguing possibility that processes may exist in a 5D the universe that involves influences
beyond 4D spacetime.
Chess is a game that plays out in two dimensions. However, moving a piece makes use of the
third dimension. Similarly the geometry of the world is four-dimensional but motion in this 4D
world may take place via a fifth dimension. In 4D spacetime motion may seem mysterious since
it involves instantaneous quantum jumps but in 5D hyperspace it becomes understandable
because a seemingly instantaneous change in location may take place via motion in the fifth
dimension. It appears that the fifth dimension is not merely a piece of nice mathematics but
might be as real as any of the four dimensions of spacetime.
This explanation may seem a bit speculative, but we cannot move beyond known physics
without some speculation.

Appendix V: Deriving the inertial scale factor

Consider the scaled Minkowskian line element with c=1:
ds 2 2 x, y, z dt 2 dx 2 dy 2 dz 2

(AV.1)

Proceeding as in Appendix III we derive (AIII.21) from the geodesic relation for the line-element
above:

Multiplying this with the velocity v and noting that since is not a function of t:

(AV.3)

(AV.2) becomes:

182

vv

v 3v
1

1 v 2 v 2
2

1 v

vv

2
1 v

(AV.4)

This is relation is identically satisfied by the inertial metric:

constant 1 v 2

(AV.5)

Substituting the inertial metric into (AV.2):

v v v

(AV.6)

Therefore the geodesic acceleration for the inertial line element satisfies:

v2
v2
a v grad
2
2

(AV.7)

This relation always holds for acceleration in any coordinate representation since the gradient vector is
covariant. This geodesic acceleration equals the gradient of the inertial field potential v2/2.
The inertial line element becomes:
ds 2 1 v 2 dt 2 dx 2 dy 2 dz 2

(AV.8)

The acceleration in (AV.7) is caused by an applied force F. We have from (AV.7):

v2
mv 2
E F ds ma ds m ds

2
2

(AV.9)

The derivation in this appendix shows that the acceleration in (AV.7) is gravitational in nature, and
that it is a consequence of the inertial line-element (AV.8). Kinetic energy is induced by spacetime
curvature caused by the inertial metric (AV.5).
Ultimately kinetic energy, as well as inertia, is due to hyperspace curvature, which alters the local
4D spacetime in 5D hyperspace.
As an example consider rotational motion with fixed radius of the Minkowskian frame modeled by:

x r cos t ; y r sin t )
x r sin t y;

y r cos t x

183

v2 x2 y 2 2 y 2 x2

We get:
ax

2
2
2 y x

2 x;

ay 2 y

(AV.10)

a ax 2 a y 2 2 r centrifugal acceleration

Spherical or cylindrical coordinates immediately yield:

1 v 2 1 r
ar

2r
2 r
2 r
2

(AV.11)

Thus, with the inertial scale metric (reintroducing c) 1-(v/c)2 the centrifugal acceleration equals the
geodesic acceleration. This demonstrates how circular motion of an inertially scaled Minkowskian
frame generates a gravitational-type inertial force. And, as was shown in the text, the inertial metric
is a relative phenomenon that applies to all line-elements for objects in relative motion. Therefore all
motions make use of the fifth scale-dimension!
This is new physics.

References
Anderson J. D., Laing P. A., Lau E. L., Anthony S. L., Nieto M. M., and. Turyshev S. G. Study of the
anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11. Physics Review Letters D 65 (2003): 08200454.
Bell, John S. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, (1987).
Bohm, D. A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in terms of hidden variables, I and II. Physics
Review 85 (1952): 16693.
Bohm, D., and J. V. Vigier. Model of the causal interpretation of quantum theory in terms of fluid with
irregular fluctuations. Physics Review 96 (1954): 20816.

184

Dingle, H. Science at the Crossroads. London: Martin, Brian & OKeefe, 1972.

Djorgovski, S., and Spinrad H. Toward the application of metric size function in galactic evolution and
cosmology. The Astrophysical Journal 251 (1973): 41723.
Drr J. S., Goldstein S., and Zanghi N. Bohmian mechanics as the foundation of quantum mechanics. In
Bohmian mechanics and quantum theory, an appraisal. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic (1996). Ehrenfests parado n.d. In Wikipedia
Einstein, A. On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 891921.
Einstein, A. Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativittstheorie. Kniglich Preussische
Akademie der Wissenschaften VI. Berlin, (1917).
Einstein, A. Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation (The field equations of gravitation). Kniglich
Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften: (1915).84447
Einstein, A. Quantenmechanic und wirlichgkeit. Dialectica, 2, (1948):32924.
Holland P. R.: The Quantum Theory of Motion: An Account of the De Broglie-Bohm Causal Interpretation
of Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (first published June 25 1993),
Kaluza, Theodor (1921). "Zum Unittsproblem in der Physik". Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin.
(Math. Phys.): 966972
Klein, Oskar (1926). "Quantentheorie und fnfdimensionale Relativittstheorie". Zeitschrift fr Physik A
37 (12): 895906.
Kolesnik, Y. B. Analysis of modern observations of the Sun and inner planets. Astronomy and
Astrophysics 294, (1995): 87694.
Kolesnik, Y. B. Residual rotation of the FK5 system from optical observations of the Sun and planets
19601994. In Dynamics, ephemerides and astrometry of the solar system, ed. S. Ferraz-Mello, B.
Morando, and J.-E. Arlot, 47781. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel. (1996).

Kolesnik Y, and Masreliez C. J., Secular trends in the mean longitudes of the planets derived
from optical observations, AJ. 128, No. 2, p. 878, (2004)
Krasinsky, G. A., Aleshkina E. Y., Pitijeva E. V., and Sveshnikov M. L. In Relativity in celestial mechanics
and astronomy, ed. J. Kovalevsky and V. A. Brumberg, 215X New York: Springer. (1986).
LaViolette, P. Is the universe really expanding? The Astrophysical Journal 301:54453. (1986).

185

Lubin, L.M., and Sandage A. The Tolman surface brightness test for the reality of the expansion. IV. A
measurement of the Tolman signal and the luminosity evolution of early-type galaxies. Astrophysics
122:1074103. (2001).
Masreliez, C. J. The scale expanding cosmos. Astrophysics and Space Science 336:399447. (1999).
Masreliez, C. J. Scale expanding cosmos theory IAn introduction. Apeiron 11 (3): 99133. (2004a).
Masreliez, C. J. Scale expanding cosmos theory II Cosmic drag. Apeiron 11 (4): 129. (2004b).
Masreliez, C. J. Scale expanding cosmos theory IIIGravitation. Apeiron 11 (4): 3051. (2004c).
Masreliez, C. J. Scale expanding cosmos theory IVA possible link between general relativity and
quantum mechanics. Apeiron 12 (1): 89121. (2005a).
Masreliez, C. J. A cosmological explanation to the Pioneer anomaly. Astrophysics and Space Science
299:83108. (2005b).
Masreliez, C. J. Does cosmological scale-expansion explain the universe? Physics Essays 19:91122.
(2006c).
Masreliez, C. J. Motion, inertia and special relativitya novel perspective. Physica Scripta 75:119-125.
(2007a).
Masreliez, C. J. Dynamic incremental scale transition with application to physics and cosmology.
Physica Scripta 76:48693. (2007b).
Masreliez, C. J. Special relativity and inertia in curved spacetime. Advanced Studies in
Masreliez C. J., Inertia and a fifth dimensionSpecial Relativity from a new Perspective, Astrophys
Space Sci 326: 281291, (2010)
Masreliez C. J, The Progression of Time- How the expanding scale of space and time forms our world and
powers the Universe. Amazon (2013)
Metcalfe, N., T. Shanks, R. Fong, and Roche N. Galaxy number countsIII. Deep CCD observations to B
= 27.5 mag. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 273:25776. (1995)
Oesterwinter, C. and Cohen C. J. New orbital elements for Moon and planets. Celestial Mechanics
5:31795. (1972).
Neto, P. N., and P. I. Trajtenberg P. I. On the localization of gravitational energy. Brazilian Journal of
Physics 30:18188. (2000)
Perlmutter, S., Pennypacker C. R., G. Goldhaber, A. Goobar, R. A. Muller, H. J. M. Newberg, J. Desai, A. G.
Kim, M. Y. Kim, I. A. Small, et al. A type 1a supernova at z = 0.347. Astrophysical Journal Letters
440:L41L45. (1995).

186

Perlmutter, S., Gabi S., Goldhaber G., Goobar A., Groom D. E., Hook I. M., Kim A. G., Kim M. Y., Lee J. C.,
Pain R., et al. Measurements of the cosmological parameters and from the first seven
supernovae at z 0.35. The Astrophysics Journal 483:56581. (1997).
Perlmutter, S., Aldering G., Goldhaber G., Knop R. A., Nugent P.,. Castro P. G, Deustua S., Fabbro S.,
Goobar A., Groom D. E., et al. Measurements of and from 42 high-redshift supernovae. The
Astrophysical Journal 517:56586. (1999)
Perlmutter, S. 2003. Supernovae, dark energy, and the accelerating universe. Physics Today (April):
5360. (1999).
Poppe P. C. R., Leister N., Laclare F., and Delmas C. Analysis of astrolabe measurements during 20
years: I. FK5 reference frame, personal and instrumental corrections."
Astronomical Journal 116:257482. (1997).
Reasenberg, R. D. and Shapiro I. I. In On the measurement of cosmological variation of the gravitational
constant, ed. L. Halpern, 71XX. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. (1978).
Riess, A. G., Strolger L., Tonry J., Casertano S., Ferguson H. C., Mobasher B., Challis P., Filippenko A. V.,
Jha S., Weidong, Li, et al. Type 1a supernova discoveries at z < 1 from the Hubble space telescope:
Evidence for past deceleration and contraints on dark energy evolution. The Astrophysical Journal
607:66587. (2004).
Schmidt B.P., Suntzeff N. B., Philips M. M., Schommer R. A., Clocchiatti A., Kirshnner R. P., Garnavich P.,
Challis P., Leibundgut B., Spyromilio J., et al. The High-Z Supernovae Search: Measuring cosmic
deceleration and global curvature of the universe using type 1a supernovae. The Astrophysical
Journal 507:4663. (1998).
Schwarzchild, K. ber das gravitationsfeld eins massenpunkets nach der Einsteinschen theorie.
Sitzungsberichte der Kniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1:189
Seidelman P. K., Santoro E. J., and Pulkkinen K. F. In Dynamical astronomy, ed. V. Szebenhey and B.
Balazs, 55X Austin: University of Texas Press. (1985).
Seidelman P. K., Santoro E. J., Pulkkinen K. F. . In Relativity in celestial mechanics and astrometry, J.
Kovalevsky and V. A. Brumberg, 89X Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.(1986).
Standish E. M. Time scales in JPL and CfA ephemerides. Astronomy & Astrophysics 336: 38184.
(1998).
Standish E. M., Williams J.G., 1990, in Lieske J.H. and Abalakin V.K. (Eds.) Inertial Coordinate System on
the Sky, Kluwer, Dordrecht, p.173
Taganov I. N. Irreversible Time Physics, St. Petersburg, 2013
Voigt, W., Gttinger Nachrichten 7: 41-51 (1887)

187

Wells, J., Coral growth and geochronometry. Nature, 197, (1963): 948950
Yao, Z. and Smith C. In Mapping the sky, ed. S. Dbarbat, J. A. Eddy, H. K. Eichhorn, and A.
Yao, Z. and Smith C. The effect of various solar ephemerides on equator and equinox solutions from
observations of the sun with the reversible transit at Cape observatory from 1907 to 1959.
Astrophysics and Space Science 177:18188. (1991).
Yao, Z. and Smith C.1993. Equator and equinox solutions from Meridian Circle observations of the Sun,
Mercury and Venus at the Cape of Good Hope and the U.S. Naval Observatory from 1907 to 1971.: In
Developments in astrometry and their impact on astrophysics and geodynamics, ed. I. I. Muller and B.
Kolaczek, 403. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Zhuck, N. A., et al. 2001. Quasars and the large-scale structure of the Universe. Spacetime & Science 2
(5): XXX

188