Are YOU Observed Into Existence? (Links in Description)

I want to disclaim once more, just about the only topic I'm irrational about is faith. I'm irrational about faith.

Of course, I have faith in the scientific method. I have faith in logic and reasoning. To some extent, I have faith in math or arithmetic.

So when I say that I'm rejecting any kind of faith, it is not true, because it's not true, it's not rational.

And when I deal with the implications of a chronon-field theory, chronon field theory is a theory in physics.

It involves extremely complex mathematics, although the philosophy of chronon field theory is very, very simple. And it contains minimal assumptions that give rise to all of physics.

Still, it's a theory in physics. It's not theology. It's not philosophy. It's not even metaphysics.

And yet, whenever we come across atheory in physics, for example, quantum mechanics, we immediately ask what does it say about the world, about reality, about the possibility of some divine intelligence?

Do these theories in physics, can they inform us about something which transcends physics, about the metaphysics?

And chronon field theory is not an exception.

Because you see, in chronon field theory, I mean, chronon field theory is, as I said, the foundation is physics, but it gives rise and it provides proof positive, mathematical, of the existence of a universal observer.

So chronon field theory created in me a state of deep dissonance because you cannot avoid the implications that there is a universal observer that brings the universe, brings reality into being.

I keep telling myself that this observer is the chronon field itself.

Chron field is the field of time with a big T, not the time we measure with watches, but the abstract concept of time.

So chronon field is the time field.

And I keep telling myself, this universal observer is the time field itself.

There's no need for an assumption of an external observer, of God.

This is non-parsimonious, it defies Occam's razor, so it must be wrong.

But then there's the problem of consciousness.

Coming back to the way I started this video, I opened this video with the problem of consciousness.

Is this observer, universal observer, conscious or unconscious, or not conscious?

And this time from the philosophical point of view, from the metaphysical point of view, and based of course on formalisms such as quantum mechanics, formalism of quantum mechanics and definitely the formalism of the chronon field theory, it seems to me that assuming the existence of a conscious, non-random observer who brings the time field into being and is actually the time field, this assumption has much more explanatory power and therefore by definition is more aesthetic and more parsimonious than the assumption that the observer is non-conscious and random.

In other words, when I make an assumption that the observer, this universal observer, is conscious and non-random, I get faster, better, more comprehensive outcomes, results in fewer steps and without involving any additional conceptual entities, which is the whole mark of good science.

I regard science and spirituality as two languages, but there's no denying that they both refer and discuss the very same things.

If these two are two languages, spirituality and science, then in principle we could construct a bilingual dictionary which would allow us to translate from one language to the other.

Thechronon field theory, as I had conceived it originally in 1982, was about seeing reality through the eyes and through the mind of a universal observer.

This universal observer brings everything into being, eventuates everything via his infinite observations.

So this act of infinite observation brings everything into being.

When I started my work in 1982, I asked myself, all theories of physics hitherto are man-made, they are about how we perceive and see reality.

But if God were the one to write the manual for his creation, I mean, assuming there's a God, to write the manual for his creation, if God were the physicists, the ultimate physicist, how would the theory look?

And I came up with chronon field theory.

It is a theory of everything, of course.

In the chronon field theory, there's a duality, duality of potential and event.

The field itself is a field of potentials, and it eventuates, but it eventuates through the act of observation and measurement of a universal observer.

This duality of potential event is very reminiscent of the wave particle duality.

And indeed, the wave particle duality is one private case of the potential event duality.

And again, the only debate is whether this universal privileged observer, let's call it the universe, must be conscious or not.

My view is that, yes, this universal observer must be conscious.

But I think the problem is semantic.

When I say conscious in this sense, it's not the kind of consciousness in the human or even non-human sense.

Consciousness, when I use the word consciousness in the metaphysics of chronofield theory, it is the simultaneous awareness of all the potentials and all the events, all the collapses of the superpositions.

It is the time field actualizing itself, transitioning from potentials to events all at once.

It is a superposition of all the potentials and all the events. This is what I call consciousness.

And so the conscious observer, this privileged universal observer or measure, it's required in order to collapse this universal wave function into what we call reality as we know it.

Only a conscious observer can measure the field itself. Only a conscious observer can observe the field itself.

Because the observer in chronofield theory, this universal observer, is the field, so the field is self-aware.

For the field itself to observe itself, it must have consciousness. It must be self-aware.

The act of observation, the act of measurement is innate, it's imminent.

It is the field that is observing itself. It is the field that is measuring itself.

But these actions are intimately associated with awareness, with consciousness.

Well, it is arguable whether an unconscious lab device, device in the laboratory, can collapse specific superpositions via acts of measurement, it is easy to prove, even mathematically, that no infinite amount of unconscious lab devices could collapse all the wave functions in a total field.

Let me repeat this.

A single lab instrument, maybe can collapse a specific superposition into being, and collapse the wave functions so that we can affect a measurement.

Even that is highly debatable, because who would interpret this data later on, a conscious being.

But leave it aside from it. Let's assume that a single lab instrument is capable of affecting observation and measurement and bringing into existence, for example, an elementary particle.

This device, of course, is non-conscious. There's no awareness.

But it is easy to prove, mathematically, by the way, philosophically, that if you take an infinite amount of non-conscious lab instruments and put them together, they would never be able to collapse all the wave functions in a total field.

This emerges mathematically from the work of Kurt Gödel, the incompleteness theorems of Kurt Gödel.

So this is one problem, the incompleteness theorem.

The other problem is it would take much more than the time of the existence of the universe until it experiences heat death. So it simply can't happen.

The devices, these lab instruments must be conscious. The observer, the devices, these lab instruments must be conscious. The observer, the universal privileged observer, must be conscious in order to eventuate or effectuate the totality of the time field.

Moreover, who or what would measure, bring into collapse the lab instrument themselves?

Even if we decide that we can put together an infinite number of lab instruments and they would do the job, they would collapse the universe for us.

But who would collapse them?

Ultimately, even though they are macroscopic objects, still they are the outcomes of multiple collapses.

Who or what would measure these lab instruments? Who or what would observe these lab instruments, who or what would collapse, would engender a sufficient number of collapses to yield these lab instruments?

In the case, when there's no observer external to the field, and there's no infinite regression of observers, each observer observing the other observer.

It's difficult to argue that the observation, the act of observation of measurement is non-conscious.

And so the collapse of the field, collapse of the time field, collapse of the Okron field must be imminent. It must be an inside job, if you wish. There must be an identity between the field and the observer. They are the one and the same. The universal privileged observers consciousness is the field is the field coming into self-awareness, so to speak, via the act of eventuation, the transition from potentials to events, to actualized events, is actually an act of awakening, an act of self-awareness. But of course, there's not beginning an end to this. It's not like the observer has been unconscious or unaware or asleep or something and then woke up and eventually the field and became aware or self-aware. That's all what I'm saying. I'm saying that awareness and consciousness are intricately integrated with the very fabric of the time field. There would have been not time filled without self-awareness of the field without consciousness. The time field is in a constant state of disequilibrium. Potentials keep becoming events. Order and structure keep emerging and increasing in pockets, in pockets of the time field, all the time, so to speak, and overall. And this implies the existence of a conscious universal observer, which keeps creating events via its acts of observation. In Chrononfield theory theory the observer is imminent. It is one and the same with the observed, with the time field. But this doesn't vitiate the fact that the field is observing itself, field is measuring itself, and therefore must be self-aware, and therefore must be conscious.

There is therefore no design involved in the Cronon field theory, it's not a religious theory, there's no creationism there. There's no designer. There's no watchmaker. There's no design involved.

But there is constant non-random creation via our preference for collapse-inducing observations and measurements. It's kind of inbuilt asymmetry. Collapse-inducing, creative acts of observation and measurement are preferred. It's a little like matter and antimatter, when matter is preferred. This preference is non-random. In other words, it must involve some kind of force, some kind of will, if you wish. Science, of course, is non-teileological. We don't allow teleology. Science never incorporates concepts such as design, intent, or intention, direction, will, planning. There's not place for any of this in science. This is metaphysics or philosophy. But science also follows the evidence where it leads and makes use of tools, of syllogism and logic that cannot be just cast aside when the outcome is uncomfortable. Had the universal observer been unconscious, there could have never been order and structured to the universe. Random fluctuations, perturbations, from potentials to events and back would have created a state of permanent equilibrium, indistinguishable from entropy. So the very fact that this is not the case is a very powerful proof of the existence of some kind of non-random process, asymmetrical process, a process with preference, preferential process. And these usually are associated with a mind, some kind of mind. Artificial or not doesn't matter. Animate or not, doesn't matter, animate or not, doesn't matter. But these are associated with a mind, awareness and consciousness, even in animat objects, as I've demonstrated. This is a very strong argument from physics, statistical thermodynamics and statistical dynamics, for the existence of a conscious, privileged, universal, non-random observer. In Crononfield theory, the field is its own observer. we don't have an external observer and this is the physics but this observer must be as I said random and non random I'm sorry and conscious and this is the metaphysics if you insist on translating this into a religious language, which is just, as I said, the flip coin of science is just another language. It uses different methodology. Faith is not risen, of course. But it's still an attempt to explicate reality. It's a hermeneutic attempt. So, if you wish to translate everything I say to a religious language, let's see.

God is the time field. All of us are events. We are realized eventuated potentials in the time field.

Within God. And where is all this happening within God, within God's mind if you wish. These are all metaphors of course, good if there is a God, doesn't have a mind, but it's happening imminently within, not from without.

And this is a very compelling religious view. God is not external to creation. God is creation. God is the field. We are all realized potentials in God's mind, the chronon field, the time field.

The field, God, is not coming from anywhere and not going anywhere. The time field has no beginning, has no end.

Of course, the time field, by definition, is timeless. The time field has not been created. It's the only source of creation.

Only within the time field can and do potentials become events. There's no eventuation outside the time field.

So there's no external observer. There's no beginning and end. there's no before and after.

Only within God in a religious language can and do we become.

And what is free will in this sense?

Free will is the residue, the relic or the remnant of our primordial state as potentials in a universe-wide superposition.

Everything and everyone, we are objects after all, everything and everyone used to be a potential and then became an event, eventuated, actualized, realized.

But initially we were all potentials.

And in this state of potential, as a potential, you have an infinite will. You are interlaced, you're integrated with the totality of the field. You are part of God, if you want to use a religious language.

And so in this universe-wide or reality-wide, or-wide or God-wide superposition, everything is possible. Everything is possible.

And because everything is possible, you have free will. Free will is simply the space of all potentials.

Free will survives this potential state and characterizes us when we're eventuated.

We used to be potentials in a universe-wide superposition. Our free will was infinite.

Then we collapsed into an event within God, the universal conscious observer whose observation and measurement brought us into being, but we retained the free will from our previous state as potentials.

This is by the way of a view of quite a few religions. The Kabbalah says that we have an obligation, obligation towards God, because God cannot be healed, cannot be rendered complete, without us.

This makes sense only if we are within God. And God is not an outsider, an external entity or a mere watchman or a mere observer.

The dream metaphor, that way, God's dream is beautiful and poetic, but I don't think it's correct. Dreams are often disjointed, non-linear, even impossible, so realistic. And it doesn't sit well with quantum mechanics and with the chronon field theory.

I don't think it's a dream state.

I think the universal observer has to be aware. Aware.

It is not awareness in the human sense, like observing myself. The universal observer does not observe itself. So it's not this kind of awareness.

But the universal observer's existence of being is so total that there is not place for it to not be aware.

And so the universal observer has to be aware in order to choose to make a measurement.

After all, measurements and observations are volitional acts.

Even when you are a universal, privileged, total observer, or even when you are the field, there must be some stage preceding the measurement of the observation, the stage that leads to the observation and measurement.

We call it will.

And so the universal observer has to be aware in order to choose to make a measurement, to collapse the wave function or the superposition, or in chrononfield theory, to eventuate a potential.

potential.

In all monotheistic religions, God creates knowingly, intentionally, and has a master plan. Logos, that is how the New Testament starts. Speech is the first divine act of Genesis.

A much more aesthetic, parsimonious and compelling view is that God is the field, within which we all become via his divine observation of us and himself, in himself imminently, not as an external observer, but as an inescapable total presence.

God observes us into becoming. God realizes our potentials. God makes us be via him.

And so I'm using religious language, of course, not because I'm a religious person. I'm vehemently not a religious person. I'm just trying to translate it for religious people.

In Judaism, it's the concept of hashgaha.

In the Ashariah school, in Islam, God is conscious and predetermines the world. He is the only one endowed with the ability to create anything at all.

And the chronon field theory is not moving anywhere, it's not flowing, it's not Newtonian. The time of the chronon field is there.

It was Newton's view that time is a river which flows. That's not chronon field theory.

The time field is just there, an infinite field of potentials, potentials which eventually become events when observed by a universal observer.

So much metaphor in this sense is an ocean. Time is imminent. It permeates reality. It's ubiquitous. It's all pervasive, but time is the only reality.

Time is reality waiting to happen, a potential, once it is observed and becomes an event.

And who is the observer? This universal, privileged observer, a process that makes everything eventually, it's the field itself.

But because the field has no time, no beginning, no end, it is highly resonant and reminiscent with the concept of God in monotheistic religions at least.

And that's where Alman Malterne's book uses insights from physics and biology and many other disciplines to try to bridge this ostensible, fallacious gap between how science sees the world and how religion or spirituality see the world.

I think, as I said, these are two languages. We are simply using different names, essentially for the very same things. I'm looking forward to our man's book because it's very well argued and relies on cutting edge research.

I think it should provoke at the very least a conversation.

Good morning everyone. What time is it?

It's time to study the Chronon Field Theory.

My name is Sam Vaknin and I'm the father of the theory. I proposed the theory in my PhD dissertation in 1984. The thesis, the PhD thesis, is available via the Library of Congress and United Microfish International, UMI, which I believe has been absorbed by ProQuest, but I'm not quite sure.

The Chronon field theory went through two phases. Stage 1, my PhD, and then 30 years with no responses and no reactions and it just went dormant. Then about 10 years ago, Aiton Sachs discovered my work and recast it in geometric terms. My original thesis was algebraic. And he of course developed it beyond recognition and the Chronon field theory is as much his as mine and possibly more his than mine.

Today I would like to give you an overview of both my work and Sucher's work. Now, physicists would benefit from this video the most. Layman would find it a lot more difficult, but it does contain philosophical nuggets. The philosophy of chronon field theory is very unusual. I don't want to tout my horn, but I'm getting used to it, so I would say it's groundbreaking.

Okay, without further ado, to my coffee. And to the chronon field theory.

In my work, chronons are time quarks, the time elementary particles. Now nothing is, there's nothing new about this. This has been proposed 200, 250 years ago. And numerous physicists have worked along these lines. Some of them regarded chronons as durations. Some of them regarded chronons as real particles.

In my work, chronons are real particles. They are quarks. The interactions of chronons yield what we know is time. Not time with a T, small t, which is the time measured by clocks, but time with a capital T, the concept of time, the dimension, if you wish. It is yielded by chronons interacting.

Because there are various types of chronons in my work. They are like quarks, you know, up, down, etc.

The interactions between the various types also gives rise to the time arrow. There is a cancellation of kind going on, and what's left is the time asymmetry.

Hence, the title of my work, Time Asymmetry Revisited.

What about space time?

Space time exists where the chronon wave function collapses. Space time is an outcome of a collapse of a wave function.

And the whole theory rests on a duality. You know, the basic duality in quantum mechanics is the wave particle duality. The basic duality in chronon-chronon field theory is the potential event duality.

Potentials and actual events or actualized events are facets of the same underlying unity, if not entity. This duality is crucial to the development of the theory.

Now, because events and potentials are one and the same in the chronon field theory, there are no particles. Particles are replaced by strings of collapse events. Particles actually are events in chronon field theory.

That's why it's a time-oriented theory. Its basic building blocks are events and potentials for events rather than particles. The quantum mechanics of the theory is a quantum mechanics of events as well, not of particles.

This is the introductory part. We'll go deeper in a bit.

Now the chronon field is a field of events or perturbations, if you wish. It's a perturbative theory. The theory of perturbations.

Time with a small t is time measured by clocks is the outcome of interactions in the time field, in the field of time with the capital T.

And so chronons are both potentials and actualized events.

There is an open question. What causes the actualization? Do chronons self-actualize? Are they observer dependent? In other words, is there a kind of Copenhagen interpretation of chronon field theory? Is there a need for an observer to collapse the wave function? Or is a collapse spontaneous, internally determined somehow?

Be that as it may. The theory does not require gauge fields, as physicists among you surely have understood by now.

And although gauge fields are not required, they emerge naturally in higher accelerations.

Now, time space, as I said, is the outcome of the collapse of a wave function.

I don't know. No one can answer whether there's a mediation of an observer, whether an observer collapses the wave function.

But of course you immediately begin, you can immediately see the religious implications.

Because if the entire universe, if space-time is a collapse of a wave function, and if the collapse is dependent upon an observer, that observer, universal observer, might as well be called God.

It is ironic that an agnostic like me has led to God in his work.

But as I said, there are no assurances that the whole process is observer mediated.

What is postulated in my thesis is that all chronons have been entangled at the moment of the big bang. There is a kind of a universal, a universe-wide entanglement of all chronons.

In other words, all potentials and all actualized events are entangled ab initio from the very beginning.

This has enormous implications because it implies that the entire universe is essentially a quantum machine or a quantum device.

And if it is, then our understanding of it currently is deeply flawed. The theory gives rise to the equivalence of quantum field theories and so forth, so the quantum field theory of chronon field theory is relativistic, actually in this sense, it's deterministic.

The chronons are the field quanta, the quanta of the field. They are the excited states of the field. And the integration of everything is via quantum superpositions.

It's quite a mouthful, but physicists among you would surely understand.

I indicated that chronon field theory is perturbative as perturbations.

So there is a perturbative quantum field theory. Time from the Big Bang is mediated by chronons. There is an expansion, including an expansion of the metric. You could even conceive of the whole thing as a phonon of the metric. Time is a phonon of the metric. Time is a phonon of the metric.

And there are many ways to look at time through the chronon field theory.

There are no bound states in any case. The excitations that I've mentioned, the states of the chronons, they are stochastic perturbances, their kinds of vibrations, if you wish.

And in this sense there's an affinity between super string theories and chronon field theory, but as distinct from super string theories in chronon field theory there's no need for extra dimensions, which renders chronon field theory a lot more grounded and a lot more easily falsifiable. It yields falsifiable predictions.

While many super string theories are lacking when it comes to yielding falsifiable predictions.

Now the cumulative perturbances that I mentioned create a distortion of space-time.

And this is what we know as curvature.

These are the basics, the philosophical basics of the theory.

And they've all been proposed in my PhD thesis in 1984.

And then, as I said, there was a hiatus of about 30 years.

And then Aitan Sucat, who is nothing short of a genius in my view, came on the scene.

And his contributions have transformed chronon field theory.

First of all, he afforded it a distinct geometric or visualization dynamic, which was missing. It was totally abstract and algebraic, therefore very limited.

And the second thing he did, he added numerous insights and literally transformed it beyond recognition I would say it's perhaps much more his work than mine.

Such had suggested that there is a universal scalar field of time but time is not a universal coordinate.

He says that particles interacting within non-gravitational fields are seen as clocks, whose trajectory is not Minkowski geodesic.

So in my work, chronons are ideal clocks, and they mediate time.

The relationship between chronons and time is like a relationship between the Higgs boson and mass. That's in my work.

But in Satchett's work, he goes a lot deeper.

And he says that a field in which a small enough clock is not geodesic can be described by a scalar field of time with non-zero curvature gradients.

Scalar field is either real acceleration of charge matter, neutral clocks, or imaginary, of Majorana type matter clocks.

Be that as it may, it preserves the scalar nature of time.

The scalar field adds information to space time. This information is not anticipated by the metric tensor alone.

And time in this case cannot be realized as a coordinate because it cannot be measured from a reference sub-manifold along different curves.

There's a lot of math in this. There's manifolds and lie algebras and so and so forth.

Those of you who would like to review the math, there's a link in the description, click on it, and you will be exposed to my math and Aitan's, Aton Such's math in various papers, published in various academic journals and so and so forth.

You're invited to download them, review them off, and please alert us to any errors, any mistakes in thinking, any mistakes in calculations, and so on so forth.

We are looking forward to input. We are hungry for input, actually.

So the non-geodesic alignment is attributed to electromagnetism or electromagnetic phenomena. Both the mass and the electric charge in this case generate gravity. I'll come to it in a minute. It's a very controversial aspect of Aytan's and Sanchez's work.

Charge, unlike inertial maps, is coupled to non-geodesic, to a non-geodetic vector field.

But they both yield gravity. Again, I will come to it in a minute.

So only the entire energy momentum tensor has vanishing divergence.

Misalignment of physically accessible events in an observer space-time, plus gravity is a controlling response by volumetric contraction of the observer space-time in the direction where events bend or are accelerated put together.

This gives the main pillar of Sucher's work.

Sucher's work yields literally all of known physics. From these basic assumptions, mine and later is, in the entire field of physics can be derived and is derived.

Anything from particle mass ratios, fine structure constant, the physical meaning of three defoliations, Beckenstein hocking entropy to area constant, acceleration field strain, Q, I mean, a quantum mechanism, everything comes, emerges naturally out of the theory, which is an excellent indication, I think.

It's an indication that the theory is onto something and touches upon some foundational basic facet of existence, of reality.

In Sucher's work, in Big Bang, in Big Bang manifold, the field is the upper limit on measurable time by interacting clocks, yes.

So he goes from each event to the singularity as a limit.

And that yields fascinating outcomes.

I again encourage you to go to the link in the description to download the papers and read them.

They are not only mathematically sophisticated, but I think in all these papers there's a lot of philosophical, how to put it without sounding too grandiose, philosophical alternatives, shall we say, which are thought-provoking in my view.

And I'm not only referring to my work, I'm actually referring mostly to Sanchez's work.

In the anti-desider space-time, the reference sub-manifolds from which time is measured along integral curves, they constitute all the events in which the scalar field is zero.

Matter in the Einstein-Gossmann equation is replaced by action of acceleration fields, the action of the acceleration field.

So it's geometric action, not foreseen by the metric alone.

As I said, this is Aitans' major contribution, the geometrization of the whole thing.

It's a theory of causal sets, in effect.

Space-time exists where the chronon wave function collapses.

Particles are replaced by strings of collapse events, and there's a quantum theory of events, not of particles.

Again, reverting to my original work in 1984.

I mentioned that there is a part of Aitan's work which is controversial, even in my eyes, and which is not mentioned in my original work, nor does it emerge from it.

But Aytan's geometric development of the work, plus input from many other scientists and physicists around the world, led Aytan to the following.

This new formation of matter in Aitans' work replaces the stress energy momentum tensor.

Positive charge manifests attracting gravity and stronger repelling acceleration field, which repels even uncharged particles that measure proper time.

In other words, particles that have a rest mass. Negative charge manifests repelling anti-gravity and stronger acceleration field that attracts even uncharged particles.

Now, this of course accounts for dark matter, dark energy and all, but it also yields a startling prediction about electrogravity, about the interchange between gravity and electric charge.

There's even a patent granted to Aytan, Sucher's based on this discovery.

It's very controversial and the interchange between electric charge and gravity is not entirely clear.

In my view, there's a lot more work to be done, but it's more robust and rigorous than one would have assumed.

In other words, it breaks through the prejudices of previous mathematical theories and forces you, forces me, for example, as a physicist, to contemplate it, to think whether it's true.

If it is true, it's one of the greatest technological breakthroughs ever. It means that we could convert gravity to electricity and vice versa. You could develop anti-gravity, and so on and so forth.

I will not go into all this. It begins to sound a lot like science fiction.

Chronon field theory is a major theoretical reconception of physics as a way to understand reality.

It dispenses with secondary properties. Everything emerges from essentially a single basic underlying assumption.

Potentials are events. Everything is events. There are no particles, they're only events. Quantum theory of events. Space time has a collapse of a wave function, probability.

In other words, potentials. And space time as an event is also a potential because it remains in a superposition state until an eventual collapse.

Collapse is mediated via an observer, or is spontaneous and self-generating. That's besides the point.

And it's a lot more, I would say, philosophical than, it's a lot more philosophy than physics.

But everything is about possibilities, probabilities. Even events which in classical quantum mechanics and so on so forth are distinguished from probabilities.

Even particles which in classical quantum mechanics and so and so forth are distinguished from probabilities, in chronon field theory are distinguished from probabilities.

In chronon field theory, they are probabilities.

Our existence, therefore, is a potential. Now the potential manifests, becomes an actualized event, but the distinction is spurious and unnecessary in the chronon field theory.

This single basic assumption gives rise to all of physics as we know it.

While in other theories in physics, there are multiple suppositions and assumptions and entities, a multiplication of entities.

Even in the simplest theories, for example, special relativity, there's still half a dozen, if not a dozen entities.

It's a strong indicator that something is wrong with these theories. There's no parsimony. Occam's razor.

A theory of everything would be based on a single principle and perhaps a single entity, for sure.

Simplicity, aesthetics, beauty, symmetry are built into reality. And the chronon-field theory, to the best of my knowledge, is the closest we've ever gotten to this.

Because it has a single assumption, not even an entity, just a single assumption.

And yet it yields all known physics and provides falsifiable predictions.

I hope it gets taken by the physics community, analyzed, possibly debunked and falsified, that's the way of science, but it deserves attention.

I'm saying this not on behalf of myself, I'm far removed. My last contributions have to do mostly with the mathematics of the theory.

But I'm saying this on behalf of science itself.

I think there's a challenging idea here, and I think it should not be neglected. It should be looked into.

Thank you for listening.

Simon, I'm very glad that you agreed to talk to me about chronomes because I was really not sure you had thought about this concept, you know, when we made programs back in the 90s.

Actually I did. And at the end, the very end of the last show we did on the radio in Israel, in Hebrew, from right to left, so to speak, you mentioned the chronon, which was very surprising.

So let's revisit the chronon.

And we decided to call this talk it's high time to define time but I would also like to catch another concept a small concept the concept God, which somehow seems to be linked to the question of time.

And I'll open with a quotation from Shulamit Aloni, who was a famous Israeli author, writer. And I once asked her what she thought about God and she said well God is the other language so here I am sheI am, she almost anticipated my work, okay, with my work is about language, okay, the colon.

So let's hear about chronons then.

First of all, I hate to burst your bubble, but actually our talks were in the 80s. We are much older than that.

In the 80s, you think?

So we're much older than that.

But late 80s, maybe.

Actually mid 80s.

Okay.

But late 80s, I think you're right.

And so my work, the chronon field theory was first developed in my PhD, in my PhD in physics, in 1992, 1983.

So by the time we had our chats, it was already four years into its existence.

Wow.

But having tried to communicate it, even to physicists, even once to Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner, you know, and possibly the second brightest mind in physics after Einstein, having tried to communicate the chronon field theory and having failed consistently, I gave up on it. I gave up on it until a group of very, very talented, I would say, geniuses, Israeli geniuses, actually, all of them Israeli, picked up a copy of my PhD in the Library of Congress.

They didn't know what they were doing.

They were searching for time and they found a copy of my PhD in the Library of Congress. And they picked it up.

And they fell in love with the theory. And ever since then, this group of physicists, all of them are physicists actually, by now, well over 50 physicists from seven countries, they've been developing this.

Not only Israelis.

Not only Israelis anymore.

Although the main contributor to this very day is an Israeli, his name is Aharon Sussman.

So he's in Israel.

He lives in the United States now.

So they took the theory further, way further than, I mean, it's no longer mine.

You don't mean Etan Sushar, the one that is on El Al flights? The one who presents all kinds of mental tricks?

Oh, I don't believe so, no.

No, okay.

He's a computer scientist and a physicist.

Oh, I don't believe so, no.

No, okay.

So he's a computer scientist and a physicist.

I don't believe he would be presenting tricks.

Because his name is also a...

He didn't go that...

Suhsha.

No, no.

He's a computer scientist and a physicist.

And others, there's hundreds.

There's others.

And they work together to develop the theory.

And they took it so far that it's not long in mind. I was kind of a catalyst of the impetus for the development.

Still, most of, if not all, of my original ideas are still in the evolved form of the theory.

So to answer your question after this very long introduction, which I wanted to put a bit in historical context what's going on, to answer your question, my work, what I try to do in my work is twofold.

I try to introduce a new language to describe reality, in other words, to do physics.

And the second thing I try to do is to deconstruct Einstein and to say that time is not a dimension but a force. It's a force.

The test was this, can we take these two underlying assumptions and of course in this limited time frame and I can't delve into the equations but can we take these we take these two principles?

Which two principles?

New language with one word, time.

Not mass, not momentum, no other word. No vector. Nothing. Just time.

Time.

If we take this monosyllabic new language and we couple it with force field with the way we describe forces which we call fields if we couple these two can we then derive all the equations in all the fields of physics that has ever existed?

You were trying to create a TOE theory?

Yes, a kind of TOE theory.

A theory of everything.

Yes.

But there's a test for this. And the test is, if you take your assumptions and couple them, can you based on these assumptions alone derive the totality of physics?

And what these scientists, these physicists succeeded to do over the past six years is to derive all of physics.

Now I'm comfortable to say this because they had completed the work about two or three months ago.

Oh.

And they had derived all of physics. Cosmology, particle theory, chromodynamics, electrodynamics, as large as cosmology, and as small as...

Let's cut it short, everything.

Newtonian physics, Einsteinian physics. You name it, they succeeded from these two principles.

So the question arises, of course.

Now that we know that these two principles give us the totality and the entirety of physics, what are these principles? What are we talking about?

So the first thing I wanted to do is not to repeat Einstein's mistake.

Einstein's mistake was not in developing relativity theories. Relativity theories are not mistaken.

Of course.

Very good theories. They've been proven time and again and so on and so forth.

Are we 18 minutes into the top?

No, no, no.

We have still 18 to go.

But what I consider to be his mistake is that he did not invent a new language.

Essentially Einstein's language is Newton's language. They're using the same concepts. Yes, Einstein looked at it from the left side while Newton was looking at it from the right side.

It's like the blind man and the elephant, you know?

Yes, yes.

They'reone of them is holding the tail...

But it's the same elephant's body. But it's the same elephant. It's grasping the elephant. One of them is holding the tail. They each touch a different part of the elephant's body.

But it's the same elephant.

It's the same elephant.

It's the same elephant.

Einstein and Newton are working on the same elephant.

And I wanted a new elephant. I wanted to introduce a new elephant into the room.

Like Shulamit Hareven's new language.

Yes.

That's what I'm saying. It's very apt, actually. It's very apt what she said, because I introduced a totally new language.

And I said, I am not going to use the old language. I refuse to speak Hebrew. I'm going to speak English.

You know, so I'm not going to introduce, and the new language consisted of one word.

Time. That's all.

That's the language with one word.

I said to myself, I must derive all the equations of physics using one word and one assumption.

Now, this is what is known as Occam's Razor, parsimony.

If there is a multiplication of words and a multiplication of entities, probably your theory is wrong.

That's Occam's Razor.

And what had happened in physics over the decades, especially in the last hundred years, is an explosion, a supernova of entities, new entities, and supernova of new words and new concepts, which is a very bad sign. It's a sign that we have lost our way.

Give me examples of...

I don't know if there's well over 100-something elementary particles.

There are models for particles, models for gravity.

No, but that's about particles, not about time.

No, no.

Nobody thought of bringing in particles into the theory of time.

Everyone realizes that physics is in crisis because it has too many concepts, too many entities, too many laws and rules. So everyone is trying to unify.

Okay, that I agree with the theory. To reduce it, I said we should have one equation.

Okay. That's one equation, the God equation. Should have one equation. One equation.

And I said, rather than going from multiplicity to unity, I'm going to start with unity.

Why do you have to go for multiplicity?

I want to start with unity.

We'll start with it.

And I said, what should I use? Should I use maybe momentum? Should I use force? What should I use? Should I use maybe momentum? Should I use force? Should I use mass? Mass maybe? Should they use energy? Should they use space? Whatwould capture all of these?

And so the only thing that captures all of this is time.

Because in time, given time, all these things happen. Had I decided on energy, energy doesn't give you time. Energy doesn't give you many elements in physics. Energy gives you mass. Energy mass.

Energy is a form of mass. The form of mass gives you energy. Energy gives you momentum and force.

Okay, but it doesn't give you many other things.

So if I take space, space gives me gravity, curvature space, gives me mass to some extent, but nothing else.

So each of these concepts can give you some other concepts, can lead to some other concepts, but not to others.

Okay.

There's only one concept that leads to everything.

Time.

Okay.

Given enough time, you have mass and you have space and you have force and you have momentum and you have everything else.

Given enough time.

Everything happens in time, in due time.

So I said, okay, so let me rewrite physics using time.

But then I said, if I use time as a field of potentials, because it's a field of potentials where everything can happen, mass can happen, force can happen, momentum can happen. So it's a field. It's a field of potentialities.

But we know in physics that whenever we have a field, we have a force.

There's no such thing in physics as field without force. You have electromagnetic field.

So whenever you have field, you have a force.

So I said this should not be an exception.

If time is a field of potentials, you have a force. So I said, this should not be an exception.

If time is a field of potentials, then it's a force.

Because we don't have an exception.

Okay.

Okay.

So it's a force.

Time is a force, not a dimension.

And then I went further.

I said, wait a minute, if time is a force, we know that all forces are mediated via particles.

And or waves?

Particles are described potentially as waves.

But forces are mediated through particles.

Even mass is mediated through a particle known as X boson.

So particles mediate the physical world.

They are like couriers. They are like Federal Express. They have the small vans and they carry energy. They carry mass. They carry, you know.

Right.

They're like couriers.

So I said time should not be an exception.

If time is a field and time is a force, there should be a particle of time to mediate time.

And then I came to chronons and chronons of these particles.

But then I went a step further.

I don't know if you're following you.

I'm following you.

So far I know that we've reached the you know I'm trying to make it as simple as the particle called chronon and now I'm trying to understand what it does.

But I'm showing you the heritage, the chain of thought.

So and then I said okay, there's this particle, but time is a field of potentialities.

So there must be a way for time to become mass. There must be a way for time to become momentum. There must be a way for time to become force, energy. There must be a way to realize these potentials in the field.

How?

So I said, well, the only solution is for the chronon to be in different states, not in a single state, but to change states. We call this process excitation.

So the chronon is excited. A little like me. The chronon is excited.

And when it passes through various excitations, and it disrupts the field. It disrupts the field. And it creates events.

Disruption of the field is an event. This event could be, if we look at an event this way, it's mass. If we look at it the other way, it's energy.

Depends on how you look at these events, they translate into the totality of physics.

So, chronons are changed, you can think of it this way if you want, in layman's terms. Chronons shape-shift. They change shape.

Okay. So they disguise themselves, they wear clothes. If they wear a certain type of clothing, they become mass. If there were another type of clothing, they become energy. Another type, they become force.

So the excitation states disrupt the field, literally disrupt it, and create what we call reality.

Is there a specific number of excitation stages?

This is a question that is excellent. Almost I could begin to suspect that you're a physicist.

Because there is a Pauli principle that says that excitation states are quantum.

In other words, they're not continuous, but they're disparate.

So, yes, the chronon excitation states are disparate. They obey the Pauli exclusion principle.

Disparate.

But we can map each excitation state to the old language of physics.

Like this excitation state is what used to be called in physics mass.

Mass. Okay. And so we have a dictionary. We have like a dictionary.

Okay.

So this excitation stage is mass and this excitation stage is...

State is energy.

This excitation state is...

If I may, there's another example.

I learned many years ago that actually the Indian belief is a monotheistic belief.

So I said, but you have Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, and they said, well, they are only manifestations of the one godhead. Holy Trinity. You don't need to go so far. You could even say that. It's one God, but the three manifestations.

So here we have exactly. It's one field of the three manifestations.

So here we have... Exactly. It's one field of potentials. Field.

Which is where there is a single particle. Particle.

And this single particle changes, it changes, wears different guises, and becomes what we used to call the old physics, even Einsteinian physics.

So, how does it become excited? How did, why would it become excited? And by what and by whom?

Yeah, how would it...

It acquires, it accelerates, it moves.

The field of potential is a field of potential because it has kind of latent energy in it.

So the particle, think of it, the particle surfs the wave. Think of this field as an ocean.

So the particle is surfing the waves. And he's accelerating. As it accelerates, it creates all these things, mass and so.

So this is in a nutshell, but here's the beauty.

The beauty is that by using essentially two principles, time is a force with a field and a single particle in different excitation states, which is infinitely simpler than current physics, like infinitely.

Simple, and current physics is an abomination. This is much simpler.

If you use this, you can derive every theory ever invented in physics, including string theory, including quantum field theory, the latest, the cutting edge theories in physics.

If you use these two simple principles, you can derive them fully. You get them fully.

I give an example to just to let's saywhat I was there.

I said that the chronon has excitation states. When the chronon gets excited like me, it vibrates. It begins to vibrate normally. Yes. Acceleries, of course, creates vibrations. These vibrations are what we call strings in string theory.

Okay.

Strings in string theory are tiny vibrations, tiny, tiny vibrations that look like strings. So there are tiny vibrations.

So when the chronon vibrates, gets excited, accelerates, never mind how you call it, it becomes a string in effect.

In other words, the two theories intermesh perfectly, seamlessly, and my theory yields all the equations of string theory without any effort.

I have another question, and this will prove that I'm not a physicist. Has anybody ever seen a chronon?

No, you don't need to see...

No, no one has seen a quark.

Okay, nobody has seen a quark.

We don't pretend in physics, at least good physicists, don't pretend that they are talking about reality.

Physics deals with one subject matter. Physics. That's a subject matter of physics.

So that's a language?

It's a language that deals with language.

That deals with language.

And then there is a correspondence theory of truth. This language should somehow resonate with our observations.

And we have processes, the scientific method, falsifiability. We have ways to test how close the language to our observations.

But we don't pretend to put our finger on quark, on a quark is a useful language element. It's a useful language, useful metaphor.

Okay. Why it's useful?

Because it yields predictions that we can then falsify via observations.

End of story.

Same with my theory. It's not a question whether there is a chronon. A chronon is a language element.

And if the chronon theory yields all the other theory in physics which are already tested, these theories are verified.

For example, you can derive relativity theory totally from chrono theory. No problem whatsoever. That was actually one of the easiest tasks.

But deriving string theory and quantum field theory was much more difficult.

But it's also, all the theories of physics can be derived from this, and because they are verified, chronon field theory is verified, actually.

So, it's like I would, it's like Esperanto. Oh, I would come with some language. And this language lived one word and one, one, well, Esperanto has many words. One word and one dramatic principle.

Imagine. I come with one word and one dramatic principle.

You can't express to.

Right, exactly.

Yeah, I mean this language is useless and then I show you that through clever manipulation you can actually derive not only Hebrew but all the language of the world.

And not only all the existing languages of the world, but every possible, the artificial languages. Every possible...

The artificial languages.

Every possible language, including artificialists, including what we call formal languages.

This is pronoun-frey-Duron. That's the power of pronouncing theory.

Thank you.

Physics today is fragmented.

Mechanics explains the motion of the large. Relativity bends space-time around mass, and quantum physics governs the subatomic world.

Each theory works on its own, but they refuse to fit together into a single, elegant truth.

Worse, the quantum world grows more chaotic with each discovery as particles multiply and complexity spirals out of control.

Where is the elegance, the simplicity, that a true theory of everything demands?

What if the solution isn't more complexity, but less? What if the universe could be explained by one field?

Time.

Imagine that time isn't a passive backdrop, but the primary force.

The Cronin field theory posits that cronons, particles of time, are the universe's true foundation.

Every force, from gravity to mass, is simply an excitation state within this infinite, all-pervasive field.

It's an elegant simplicity that redefines everything we know.

A universe built on time reshapes our understanding of reality.

It explains the connectionon time reshapes our understanding of reality. It explains the connection between quantum physics and relativity. It simplifies the complexity of modern physics. And it opens the door to questions that extend beyond science.

What if time, as an all-pervasive force, is also the bridge to something greater?

Across history, sacred texts have seen time as nonlinear, infinite, and profound.

From Einstein's equations to spiritual traditions, the idea of time connects us all.

If time is the fundamental force, what creates the time field itself? What lies beyond this all-encompassing ocean?

The Cronon field theory is only the beginning.

Discover its full implications.

In the book, The Quantum Divine Nexus, the groundbreaking book that explores reality's deepest mysteries, available the sixth of January, twenty twenty five as hardcover, paperback, and ebook. Pre-order now only on Amazon.