Essay Abstract

Human inquisitive search for order in nature led to evolution of abstractions on nature. Among the powerful abstractions are Space, Energy and Nominal Numbers. They form subject matter of this essay. The terms observation and observer share there meaning with measurement and 'reference frame' among others. Space is affiliated to frame of reference. Conservation includes neutralization when applied to charge Vs mass where no neutralization is experienced. Energy is affiliated to Conservation and measurement with nominal numbers. In this essay we propose a re-alignment of relationship between these abstractions and introduce a new term Anti-Konservation as defining characteristic of space. By doing so we overtly do away with legacy of fixed (no change) space carried from Cartesianism. The benefits include a 5-D view of universe 'Space contains Energy' and integration of many fundamental laws with explanation for some astronomical observations.

Author Bio

Academically Vijay Gupta is an electronics engineer. He lives in Toronto, Canada. Theoretical Physics has been his passion since 1965. He initiated himself into a Pico-Physics - rethink process to integrate laws of physics into Unary law. Explanation begins with creation of particles in Space. The properties of these particles are evolved and identify with individual matter particles. Simple facts like 3-Dimensions of space, Time, Inertia, Force, Mass, Charge etc have to be integrated into Unary Law. Results of PicoPhysics match most of contemporary physics. It differs on elementary particles and theory of universe. www.picophysics.org

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Mr. Gupta,

I think that your essay is one of the finest works on abstraction I have ever read. For myself, I think the scientists are wrong in assuming that there are three theoretical dimensions with one aspect to them. I believe the reverse is true. I strongly feel that there could only be one dimension that always has three aspects to it. Your concept of the possibility of there being 5 dimensions though is far superior to my humble one.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #3

    Hi,

    You are false both of you.Please respect the GR and its sister the SR.Now I am going to explain quickly why it is not possible.

    Because for the respects of all our proportions due to rotating 3D spheres, we must accept the 3D in all abnalyzes.Because Mr Gupta, without this 3D and its relativistic evolutive 4D space time.Don't confound the vectors of course !!!!Without this 3D I am repeating, we cannot see the contemplations of this magnificient UNIVERSAL 3D SPHERE IN EVOLUTION OF MASS .

    I am very chocked to see how scientists interpret our foundamental laws.Oh My God, but what do they do ?

    Please dear extradimensionalists, the complexity is to analyze the 3D in details towards the singularities, these walls , so not necessary to invent false diemsnions, let's calculate and analyze our pure 3D.In fact your works are a lost a time simply.For me also in trying to explain a rational road !

    Regards and good luck that said .

    Steve

    • [deleted]

    • Post #4

    Dear Mr Steve Dufourny,

    It is my pleasure to read your comments. Many mainstream physics experts will feel the same. Text of your comments hints to some basic questions. I will try my best to formulate and reply to them.

    Before I address the questions, the 5-Dimensional universe to me is same as simple fact that Energy exists in Space. We can not intuitively conceive of energy existing without space. To this fact we add following observations taking them as facts;

    a. There is no observation of negative energy objects. Negative energy is conceived as a difference between two positive values (differential potential energy). So for energy, there is no negative as it exists for charge. When we apply conservation to energy, it is different than the conservation as applied to charge. To distinguish the two, we encapsulated conservation of energy as Konservation - Conservation without neutralization.

    b. The next subject of analysis used in this analysis, is what we mean by observation. Is it different than measurement. Can we measure something that does not exist? The intuitive answer is, we can not measure something which does not exist. This is used to create subset from number set, as physical number set for use in measurement.

    c. When we talk of dimesions, there is a reality in front of which we express the dimensions. For example dimension of area is 2 and volume is 3. When we are considering universe ( composed of energy existing in space), we are expressing dimensions of not only space but also include the dimensions of Energy.

    d. When we consider area of two dimensions, we multiply value of each dimension. However, for energy we don't do the same. The reason I believe is because, we are not able to distinguish different infinities. But with new infinite series, we can distinguish between infinities. So we can treat Energy as normal two dimensional reality, and space three dimension identity.

    This gives us 5-dimensions of the universe.

    1. Respect General and Special Relativity; you are very correct. We must respect these theories. The attempt here is to understand these theories as result of something more fundamental. For example consider special relativity; Consider can you measure time and distance independently. You can consider any permutation and combination, but will end up the distance measurement is based on time or vice versa. One can argue that we can have independent unit for length and time and measure them independently. But this is a false argument. The basic unit of length at the core is arrived using speed of light and time. Thus dependency of time and distance is inherent law of nature. In my view this sits at core of observations such as Lorentz transformations and The Michelson-Morley experiment. This is expressed as mapping of chronological dimension onto one of three space dimensions.

    2. General Relativity: Here again you are right. General relativity is seen by mainstream physics more as a set of mathematical tools to explain gravitation. However, in 5-dimensional model we give it a direct intuitive meaning consistent with observations. This is consistence not only with Newton's gravity but also with Cosmological expansion and cosmic background radiations. It may not clear at this point, but you will defiantly find that there is no contradiction between 5-dimensional universe and general relativity.

    3. Without 3-D: You are right here also. Though I don't understand full context of your statement, but I can say, the unary law 'Space contains Knergy' itself is at the foundation for space to have 3-dimensions. It is not disputed. But when we study, or evaluate results of an experiment or observation, we always encounter both space and energy, and hence 5-dimensional universe is relevant to us all the time rather.

    4. Complexity and singularities in 3-D space; Here again I agree with you. You will find the same further explanation on model of universe at http://picophysics.org/applications/model-of-universe/. I am working at putting something across on this, but need to cover simpler issues before coming to formation of elementary particles where these singularities will be explained.

    Thanks for your valuable comments.

    Dear Mr Joe Fisher,

    Thanks for your comments and encouragement. 'One dimension that always has three aspects to it' is correct. If we divulge at what is meant by aspect is dimension and what is meant by dimesnion is the reality in my discussion.

    Space has Euclidean 3-Dimensions. Knergy has two dimesnions (Energy and Chronological). The chronological dimension of Knergy is mapped onto one of the Euclidean dimensions. This gives us 5 dimensions of universe that is composed of Space and Knergy.

    As you rightly said, we as human continue to work to understand nature. To understand we create an order based on abstractions and logic. In this aspect no one concept can estabish superiorty, but scope of applicability of abstraction is important. I have tried to make sure no aspect of mainstream physics as known to me about 40 years back is left out.

    Regards,

    Vijay Gupta

    Vijay

    As per your request on my blog.

    1 What 'really' occurs (assuming it does) we cannot know. We are trapped in a loop of sensory detection, which, given certain practical problems with that, we can enhance, scientifically, by hypothecation based on validated direct experience (ie that is indirect sensory experience). All the machinations post receipt at the sensory organ are irrelevant (ie observation, brain, etc). What we need to establish is1) what physically existent phenomena were received, 2) what physically existent phenomena (the reality) was involved in the instigation of that which we received. Physical existence is what occurs as at any point in time.

    2 Measured reality is the calibration of what exists. There are no absolutes, any judgement must use a reference. That does not alter what physically existed. Any reference of any given type can be used.

    3 There are more than three dimensions, there are half the number of possible directions that the smallest elementary particle could next move from any given spatial point. There is no chronological dimension in a physically existent reality, because timing is associated with the change between them, not of one. I do not understand the other item.

    4 SR, as defined by Einstein, involves:

    -no gravitational forces

    -only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary (which is in effect, stillness)

    -fixed shape bodies at rest (no dimension alteration)

    -light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed (no curvature)

    5 Mathematical numbers are representational devices (as are words or graphics), they must correspond to existent phenomena, being intrinsically valid is not enough. Hence as you say zero is a 'problem', but there can be none of something in a circumstance.

    6 Realities can be distinguished from each other in terms of 1) substance (ie what it was), 2) order (ie order of occurrence), 3) frequency (ie the rate at which differences occur.

    7 Time does not physically exist, there is only timing. There is no physically existent state which corresponds with the concept. Timing compares rates of change, per se, ie one to another. It involves comparison of the sheer number of change occurrences. That is, the number of changes irrespective of type which occurred in any given sequence, compared to any other number that occurred meanwhile. The latter could be in any sequence (including the former), and either have occurred concurrently, or otherwise. For example, with a quartz device, the number of crystal oscillations is being counted whilst some other number of changes occurs. Expression of the result in terms of days, etc, being merely indicative of fossilised language, as the first 'clock' was earth movement.

    8 Space does not physically exist, physically existent states do. It is a concept prompted by the fact that physical existence involves relative 'presence', in the sense of shape and size, which can be conceptualised as the 'occupation' of 'space'.

    Paul

      • [deleted]

      • Post #7

      Hello Mr Fisher and Mr Gupta,

      Mr Gupta,

      I am understanding where are your foundamental errors.

      I suggest that you insert physical causes about mass, the spheres and their rotations of course. Without our 3D , it is all our proportions which disppear at ALL SCALES.The quantum entanglement is finite and precise and in 3D!!! Like the Universal sphere is in 3D also. Inside these 2 gauges , we have a perfect complexification in 3D , the biology, the chemistry, the phsyics or the maths or this or that are all in 3D.

      quantum spheres 3D..HCNO see the chemistry 3D and the biology.....amino acids 3D and this and that on the line time...EVOLUTION SPHERIZATION 3D INSIDE A PURE EVOLUTIVE SPHERICAL UNIVERSE.....3D..cosmological spheres...UNIVERSAL 3D.

      NOW LET S BE SERIOUS AND RATIONAL.So if we insert the 4d with time which is not a vector !!! and let's insert a 5éme dimension like the consciousness.So it is not a vector !!! and also if we analyze the evolution and complexification in a pure darwinist way and if we see the brain like a result of evolution, we see the consciousness proportional with the polarizations m/hv on the entropical arrow of time.

      We are like tools of harmonizatiion spherization.

      Hope that helps.

      Regards and good luck.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #8

      oops this post was from me , the crazzy spherical revolutionary. :)

      Thanks Paul for your comments,

      I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your valuable comments.

      Your are correct in stating 'What 'really' occurs (assuming it does) we cannot know?' The view on validated direct experience as observation of a fact of nature is correct. When this experience is tied with a number, we call it a measurement in the language of PicoPhysics, otherwise it is an observation related to human senses. I have meditated on object, observer and observation to understand what we mean by observation. This is available as a write-up at

      http://picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer/

      You have correctly stated Measured reality is the calibration of what exists. Existence part is seen as identity of reality. The calibration part is considered as attempts to identify a unit and number to represent the same. Here as well as on other points mentioned by you, I agree with you.

      On chronological dimension, I agree with you. In mainstream physics, this is hidden in the linguistic definition of reality itself. For example, if energy or mass is given property of conservation. I believe the reason is originally we were not able to think in terms of transfinite numbers (uncountable infinities). We could easily conceive a line segment of 2 centimetres being twice as large as one centimetre. But when we consider the points in these two lines, both have infinite points. Georg Cantor gave us the additional numbers to represent the difference in point counts on lines of differing lengths, but the same has not been interpreted on these lines. In this essay, I am making an attempt to bring to fore-front the dimension of time instead of hiding it linguistically. This also helps us place special relativity on firmer grounds.

      Distinguishing realities has to be based on what they are. In this presentation and others to follow, we will be able to establish that at the core, are two realities; Space and Knergy. Out of this Knergy is naturally quantized and binds occupied space together.

      You have correctly stated that Time does not physically exist. It represents dynamic states of universe across which Knergy is quantitatively preserved. In Pico-Physics thought process we have more or less same thought process as yours on time. We put it across in terms of instance - a snap shot of universe, and event an occurrence or presence of Knergy in space. Time is seen as distance between events and Samay (the chronological dimension) as distance between instances.

      You are again right to state that 'Space does not physically exist'. Its existence is meaningful when either is occupied by Knergy or traversed by Knergy. Otherwise, it can be just considered as collection of points defined by four values (Euclidean co-ordinates and event gap from observer) where Knergy is present at any instance.

      Please advice if I was able to interpret and integrate your opinion correctly into my thought process.

      Thanks and regards

      Vijay Gupta

      • [deleted]

      • Post #10

      Vijay

      "The view on validated direct experience as observation of a fact of nature is correct"

      But be careful not to translate that, or what I say, as there must be direct, and validated, sensory experience for fact. There are many reasons why this may not be true, or more obviously, possible (para 22 my essay). So hypothecation is necessary, but it is based on, and checked against, direct experience as far as possible. Therefore there are facts and 'indirect' facts. The point is, not assertion and not a model/ representational device which does not correspond with how physical phenomena occur and hence generates assertion.

      "I have meditated on object, observer and observation to understand what we mean by observation"

      Any form of sensing (including observation) involves the passive receipt of a physically existent phenomenon. In travelling, it came to the same spatial point at the same time as the receiving organ of a sensory system. Some light hit an eye rather than a brick wall. The difference is that subsequently within the sensory system it is processable as 'information'.

      There is no infinity, just 'unbelievably large/many'. For physical reality to occur, it must be definite. That is, as at any point in time there is X, which is physically existent. But, it would be impossible for us to define (say) the monitor in front of you in terms of its physically existent state (ie X). However, that measuring failure should not lead to the misrepresentation of reality.

      Time does not represent anything. The whole concept needs to be eradicated. There is difference, which indicates alteration. And the rate of change irrespective of type is calibrated by a measuring system known as timing. By definition, there can be no change within a physically existent state (reality) because change involves more than one, it is difference between (ie more than one), not a characteristic of one.

      "Please advice if I was able to interpret and integrate your opinion correctly into my thought process"

      On the face of it, yes. But there are some concepts in your essay I do not understand (I will give it another read) AND I have learnt in a year of posting here that people seem, indeed believe, to agree but actually do not. So I would be grateful if you could similarly read my essay again and comment on it. That will tease out any underlying differences.

      Paul

      • [deleted]

      • Post #11

      Dear Vijay Gupta,

      you have presented a lot of information in your essay and have obviously put a lot of thought into how it all works. How should Knergy be said? Being unfamiliar with it and not knowing how to say it, I had to keep referring back to the definition and translating it.

      I agree that there is energy associated with matter but I have reservation about agreeing that it is a property /dimension of the matter itself.I think it can be symptomatic, for want of a better word, of a relationship to other matter and /or the environment. If the matter could be isolated from all other matter and environment (which is impossible))the kinetic energy, and minimisation of potential energy, that gives change also would not exist. The -relationships- are necessary for the particular change to occur and for it to be defined.

      Though I am not sure of the advantages of describing reality as you have, you probably are. It would take me a while to become familiar with what you propose.We do not need to agree.Good luck in the competition, and I hope you find lots of appreciative readers.

        Dear Georgina Parry,

        It is my pleasure to receive your comments of 5-Dimensional universe. 5-Dimesions of space is another way of stating that Space contains Energy. However, when we try to understand what energy is, we find that no specifics can describe energy but conceptual conservation. An investigation into conceptual conservation leads us to other realities that are considered conserved. Prominent among others are charge & momentum. These others are distinguishable from Energy and matter in one respect that is neutralization. If we are able to distinguish between realities that are conserved, with neutralization as basis we hypothesise Konservation as conservation without neutralization.

        Now when we attempt to understand Energy and matter we reach another bottleneck. That is observed magnitude depends on observer for energy. For matter - say a billion atoms of hydrogen, it is not dependant on observer. To distinguish between matter and energy we coin another word 'Knergy' pronounced as K-e'nergy.

        This leads us to Knergy and Konservation. Now we look back at the fact of Energy exists in space. In attempt to transform this truth statement into law of nature we replace Energy with Knergy. 'Space Contains Knergy' is now termed Unary law.

        The distinction between Energy & Knergy is described in further details at http://picophysics.org/concepts/konservation-and-knergy/.

        The pdf commentary for download and keeping for referenceis available at http://vmguptaphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/konservation.pdf

        For this statement to be called 'Unary Law', it has to be self contained. At this time, still definition space as 3-D continuum is borrowed from outside. I will continue with this in a moment.

        Thanks and best regards,

        Vijay Gupta

        • [deleted]

        • Post #13

        Dear Georgina Parry

        Continued (3-Dimesnions of space)

        Understanding of space is build in contrast with Konservation with an eye on knowledge about nature already accumulated into our intuition. In the exercise to arrive at Unary law, we give pride of place to human intuition.

        Some logically direct corollaries of Unary law are detailed at http://picophysics.org/unary-law/unary-law-corollaries/

        The pdf commentary is available at http://vmguptaphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/unary-law-corollaries.pdf for download and keeping for reference.

        The main derivative statements emerging out of this discussion are;

        1.- Space has three dimensions

        2.- Knergy moves at constant speed in space.

        3.- Time is progressive and unidirectional.

        4.- Knergy can be freely distributed in space.

        5.- Space has affinity to possess Knergy

        6.- Space devoid of Knergy is homogenous

        These results give us sufficient leverage to call 'Space contains Knergy' as law of nature. Since it acts as mother law we call it Unary Law. Now all laws of nature at minimum need to meet the test of being compatible to this statement 'Space contains Knergy' or unary law.

        5-Dimensional Universe is a statement that says that if you would like to consider space and Knergy together as one reality, there are five dimensions to it. This gives us the heading of this essay '5-Dimensional Universe'.

        Most of the text in essay is my attempt to be able to speak in the context of mainstream physics.

        Thanks and best regards,

        Vijay Gupta

        Good morning Paul,

        Thanks for your comments on my essay. I appreciate yourself commenting your essay with paragraph numbers. It is a great idea.

        I have meditated on reality quite a bit before coming to conclusions reflected in my current thinking. Your emphasis on logic and physical reality in Para 3 to 9 is perfectly compatible with special relativity and Lorentz transformations. Lorentz transformations can be read to state that if different realities exist with characteristic speed different than speed of light, they are mutually non-interacting. Their location can not be ascertained. This was one of my earlier conclusions drawn from reading Lorentz transformations.

        My current approach is understanding reality in terms of reality and identity. I am at peace with this understanding, as I am able to order and control my thoughts on this basis. Before I developed this approach to reality, I remain confused on reality. May be I remained in confused state on reality for about 10 years.

        Para 10 to 14 in your essay is looking at core/foundations/fundamentals of existence and reality. Mainstream physics uses our well developed intuition on these matters but is otherwise silent (at least not taught to us at school level). I have made an attempt to bring the intuition into picture when considering these aspects.

        Para 15 to 24 divulge into different aspects of observation while Para 25 to 29 on measurement aspects. I agree on most of the points. Being an engineer, I think in terms of numbers and units. This is reflected in my approach to understanding these issues. My approach is available at http://picophysics.org/concepts/observation-observer/ .

        Para 30 to 37 indicate the relationship of the ideas with mainstream physics. This is what all of us are doing here - attempting to evaluate our ideas for usefulness to mainstream physics. I believe you have great ideas and understanding about nature. I find them to be useful.

        I greatly appreciate the time you have taken to help me in the process and continue to look forward to receive your comments on my thoughts and approach to understanding nature.

        Thanks and Best Regards,

        Vijay Gupta

        Vijay

        As discussed, a re-read. Again I found I could only respond with a set of points reflecting those made, in a sort of tangential way. Another way of putting this is I really do not understand what physically relates to that 4th dimension, konservation, anti-konservation, knergy, and host reality.

        Physical reality is independent of sensory detection. And it is not the reality, as such, which is detected (in the sense of received by a sensory system), but a physically existent effect (a reality) arising from an interaction with it. Sensory detection has no effect on physical existence, other than the effect ceases at the point of reception (in just the same way as if it had hit a brick wall instead of an eye/ear/etc). The subsequent processing of this is irrelevant. It is just that the end result of it (ie individual articulated perception) is the only base from which the analysis can start. Though it could be argued that the sensory process as such, involves physics.

        Any form of characteristic, etc, must have a corresponding physical existence, otherwise there is a flaw in the definition of it.

        Any judgement (measurement) involves reference, because there are no absolutes.

        All representational devices (eg maths) must have physical correspondence. Internal rationality is insufficient.

        Space does not physically exist, physically existent states do. It being a method of conceptualising the relative shape/size of these states in terms of their 'occupation' (spatial footprint). 3 dimensions is the minimum number of dimensions of all those physically possible, that can be conceptualised, whilst still being valid as a representation of what physically exists (ie the highest level of depiction). I do not understand what physically relates to the 4th one proposed.

        Time has no corresponding physical existence. Physically existent states in any sequence, differ. But difference involves more than one. Changes occur at different frequencies, whether comparing some of the same type or disparate types. Timing measures the rate of changes (ie rate of rate, change of itself). So this is concerned with measuring a characteristic of the comparison of states, not of one.

        Paul

        This is an attempt to understand the anonymous and aslo record my view point.

        Dear Anonymous,

        It is my pleasure to have you with us. In your comment you have mentioned ' insert physical causes'. I would like to talk about Physical Cause. In your statement, your belief in cause-affect logic is embedded. I share the same belief with you. We are also cautious of the fact of human limitation. We think in terms of one to one relationship between cause and affect logic, while in nature cause is an amalgamation (totality of all preceding events) of causes.

        In PicoPhysics - totality of all preceding events that can affect an event is topological distribution Knergy (Matter) in space and space it self. Knergy (Matter) due to Konservation is unaltered at unit level (Quantum level - always indivisible/unit value equalling planks constant). The space factor is seen as time gradient with respect to geometric space (space density). Thus cause that controls/governs change is defined in PicoPhysics.

        Thanks and regards,

        Vijay Gupta

        Good afternoon Paul,

        You have a correct approach to read. With so much abstraction in science, it is always difficult to communicate thoughts correctly between thinking people. Being an engineer myself, I have faced this problem since my introduction to the subject of science.

        4th dimension: Samay is the fourth dimension. It can be considered as time of a clock that is stationery to the observer. It also defines simultaneity between distinguishable events. Consider two events occurring at different locations with respect to an observer. Are they simultaneous? To answer this question, in relativity we have a set of concepts and assumptions. Still it can not be answered. If two events are simultaneous to one observer they are not so for another. There is no absolute simultaneity. I read a little from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity before forming this statement. In PicoPhysics; Konservation demands absolute simultaneity to enable counting of unit Knergy objects. If we can not count, unit Knergy objects that are in constant motion, assigning magnitude to Knergy in an object is meaningless. Thus we say, that all simultaneous events belong to same instant.

        Now simultaneous event belonging to same instant occur at different positions in space. Th esperation between events now needs to be defined not only by physical separation but also by separation in samay (the 4th chronological dimension). Events that are simultaneous to one observer are simultaneous to all observers.

        This is reflected in simple algebric equation as;

        Separation between events is given by 't' as below;

        t2

        = x2 y2 z2 s2

        Now when we define observer, it is defined with respect to simultaneity invariance with respect to observer by putting value 0 to s, the parameter for samay in above equation. Then we have;

        t2

        = x2 y2 z2

        This is the equation at the core of special relativity and Lorentz transformations. While for PicoPhysics that is another manifestation of Konservation of Knergy.

        Samay is the fourth or chronological dimension similar to other three Euclidean dimensions of space. 3-D space to 4-D space relationship is similar to plane (2-D) is to 3-D Cartesian space. (Except that this dimension is unidirectional to observer.)

        I am thankful to you and your efforts to understand what may be the meaning. I donot know, if I am able to explain the 4th dimension or not. Please advice, if not I will attempt again to explain. My expressing power is slightly weaker than the task at hand demands. I will continue to try my best.

        Finaly we need to change the presentation text and stype to be understandable to a cursry visitor to essay. I will reply to other points in a moment.

        Thanks and Regards,

        Vijay Gupta

        Good afternoon Paul,

        I will continue with my reply with 'Any judgement (measurement) involves reference, because there are no absolutes'.

        You are right, as far as measurements are concerned there is no absolute - only comparison with standard objects. However, in nature absolutes exist as constants. They can measure differently depending on standard system of measurements adopted for scientific explorations. But they are constants and represent constant magnitudes. Speed of light is one such absolute. Plank's constant, Hubble's constant and Electronic charge are some other constants.

        So absolute values do exist and can be used as standard. In picophysics we use plank's constant as natural standard for measurement of Knergy (Matter). Speed of light being a ratio by itself does not give us a standard. If electronic charge is taken as a standard. Speed of light will give us natural standards of length and time as well.

        Thanks and regards,

        Vijay Gupta

        3-D SPACE

        Good afternoon Paul,

        I will continue with my reply with '3 dimensions is the minimum number of dimensions'.

        You are perfectly right here. In PicoPhysics, these three dimensions evolve out of Unary law 'Space contains Knergy - pronounced as Kay Energy'. Details about the same are available at http://picophysics.org/unary-law/unary-law-corollaries/ where we discuss unary law further to evolve first level of statement for general use. These statements are;

        1. Space has three dimensions

        2. Knergy moves at constant speed in space.

        3. Time is progressive and unidirectional.

        4. Knergy can be freely distributed in space.

        5. Space has affinity to possess Knergy

        6. Space devoid of Knergy is homogenous

        You will note that in PicoPhysics attempt is made to question some of basic assumptions that are result of human intuition being taken as fact of nature are explained and evolve out of unary law. 5-Dimensional universe is representation of Unary law in a different context.

        Thanks and regards,

        Vijay Gupta

        Dear Vijay Gupta I enjoyed reading your paper, and see you are seriously seeking a new physics from fundamental new starting points. Your analytical approach to define terms both mathematical and physical reflects your seriousness - also the historical perspective you bring to the discussion. I found that I could not understand exactly what some of your terms mean - perhaps concrete examples will be helpful. For example what is neutralization? I agree with you that a 5th dimension of energy is essential in conventional physics. In my Beautiful Universe Theory the ether nodes are carriers and transmitters of this energy of space. Such a 5-dimensional Universe was proposed in Kaluza-Klein theory. It has been suggested that the 5th dimension pertains to ether particles.

        Keep up the good work! Best wishes

        Vladimir