Is Quantum Theory As Fundamental As It Seems? by Michael James Goodband

[deleted]

Tom,

"The dimension of an object is a topological measure of the size of its covering properties."

As I've said many time, the math only models reality, it is not foundational to it. Dimensions are not causative, only measures.

[deleted]

John, since you and Paul have decided that you already know what "reality" is, I'll leave that debate to you.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

As I will leave you with your contention that the source of all information is a point at infinity, because parallel lines appear to converge there.

[deleted]

John,

Did Tom explain what he understands as dimensions in the diverse branches of mathematics and physics, and in general? I looked in my English Learner's dictionary and was surprised:

2 "The dimensions of a situation or a problem are the extent or importance of it."

3 "A dimension is a measurement in space such as length, width, or height."

I don't intend mocking when I am asking whether such dimension can be negative.

Eckard

[deleted]

Only if the geometry is acute, John. If obtuse, lines diverge.

Eckard, I linked the standard usage of dimension in science and mathematics. It's standard in English, German, Swahili or Chinese.

Tom

[deleted]

Tom,

Engineers like me are considering e.g. electric charge a dimension in dimensional analysis. So called standard usage seems to be open for nearly any arbitrarily chosen number of dimensions including split ones. Merely infinity sounds a bit strange as the minimal one.

Is the x-coordinate a dimension? Is the time-coordinate a dimension? Isn't negative length as unphysical as negative elapsed time?

Eckard

[deleted]

Tom,

Parallel lines are neither obtuse or acute. The problem is that you are projecting a three dimensional view onto two dimensions. C. S. Escher showed just what could be done with two dimensional representations of three dimensional perspective. I can only wonder how much of current physics is also mathematical illusion,.

Eckard,

I suppose the negative dimensionality is after the lines meet at infinity, they cross and then become obtuse.

Call it a pre-singularity gravitational crunch. (I'm not being serious.)

[deleted]

Tom

"Paul have decided that you already know what "reality" is"

I have neither decided what reality is, oh that I had such power, reality is what it is nobody decides it, nor what occurs in any given circumstance. What I am pointing out is the form of that physical existence. Which if physics ignores, it is highly likely to be basing the analysis on metaphysical constructs, as per Eckard's question above re mathematical illusion.

Paul

Joy Christian

Hi Michael,

Just to let you know: I have started my own blog about quantum correlations. I hope you are still enthusiastic about the spheres. If so, do drop by to check out my new blog.

All best,

Joy

Joy Christian

PS: The discussion on the significance of the parallelized spheres is on the last page.

Joy Christian

PPS: At some stage I plan to summarize on my blog some of the discussions we had on this page.

[deleted]

Hi Joy,

That is an excellent idea for the start of a new blog thread on your blog.

Best,

Fred

Joy Christian

Thanks, Fred.

Michael Goodband

Hi Joy,

It's a good idea to have your own blog, and I've added it to my favourites. It is quite demanding on time keeping a blog live, so I hope you will be able to maintain it with your thoughts and ideas on quantum correlations and papers of interest.

The 4 spheres are uniquely defined and S15 is the only viable embedding that brings them together, and proof is proof (apparently that is now a radical idea in modern physics), so I'm not going anywhere else. I note that it seems to be dawning on mainstream physics that most of their big ideas have been proven to have failed. How long will it take for the physics community to let go of the ideological belief that QT is fundamental?

All the best,

Michael

PS. I'm just not getting to the point of reviewer status on US amazon.

Joy Christian

Hi Michael,

Good to know you are still there for the fight.

We shall never surrender.

Best,

Joy

« Previous Page