From Minkowski\'s Diagram to the Multispace Model of the Universe by Eugeniu Alexandrescu

Dear Eugeniu,

The problems in your essay about quantum spaces really important for the physics. Please see my essay and Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter in which no problem with different types of spaces. First of all particles can not be treated as points (see also Scale dimension ). The singularities and black holes in Universe are absent. There is possible substantional models of proton, neutron, electron, other particles, gravitational model of strong interaction, model of quark quasiparticles, strong gravitation and so on. With this in mind we find that mathematical spaces of Standard Model are consequence only of symmetry of nuclear interaction and substance structure of numerous short-life particles. In my opinion the reality may be explained without invisible spaces.

In your Fig 2 the length OX = OX`` , time t = t`` ? And projections OX` < OX`` and t`< t`` according to Lorentz transformations. As I see the plane P` must be rotated both around the axes OX and axes t. You think it is possible instead of it to use only one rotation around the axes u. But such rotation do not change amplitudes of projections OX` and t`, so additional rotation around second axes is necessary. For example such axes may be perpendicular to plane P` and axes u. I hope you can evaluate my essay too.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your opinion on this essay.

Basically, I agree with you to disregard the Big Bang model, but not the existence of singularities and black holes that you consider "as objects, absorbing any substance and not giving anything out." I will post my comments on the forum page of your essay.

In Endnote 6 you find an explanation of Fig 2, but because of the limited space I had to cut several details. Please let me know if we want to get the whole text.

For your second question, I didn't explore other possibilities since in Minkowski's diagram the x' and t' axes approach the light path. (In special relativity, the bisector of the xOt-angle is called the "light path," because when v=c the two axes x' and t' are superimposed.)

My scope is to demonstrate that Minkowski's original diagram is just a partial view of the 3DSD, the later showing the "whole picture.'' This means that trying to rotate plane P' around other axes would have obscured my point.

Regards,

Eugeniu

Dear Eugeniu,

Lorentz transformations from the mathematical point of view are transformations of coordinates and time of frame 1 to coordinates and time of frame 2, which are rotation of coordinate systems. For x and t it is rotation of plain in space. But axis u is not really perpendicular to the plane xOt. So we can determine orientation of plane P` with the help of two rotation. I supposed that in Figure 2 axis u is perpendicular to the plane xOt, in this case there is second rotation is necessary. In any case orientation of axis u depends only on coefficients of transformations, which depend themselves on speed and Lorentz factor.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Dear Eugeniu,

For travelling of energy and matter in the Universe black holes are not needed. You can see some arguments about impossibility of black holes in the article Covariant theory of gravitation.

About the expanding of the Earth see the news New Study Shows Earth Is Staying The Same Size. My full answer to your other questions is at my discussion page of essay.

The slide show 3D Space-Time Diagram is working good enough. But the length of time vector t` must be close to zero when the speed of motion is close to the speed of light. So there is necessary second rotation of the plane P`.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Dear Eugeniu,

I hope you agree that the matter at the Earth is made of nucleons mostly. The same is true for substance of neutron star. We do not say in the case about quantum fields as a source of the substance. Instead of it we explain big object with the help of small particles. And the same is supposed for any real particles including nuons or praons. All the particles are made again of particles which are much more small.

You say about a particle in an orthogonal space does exactly that: it appears to an observer as dimensionless and eternal, which is the reason why, with some exceptions, first generation matter is said to be stable. In my mind the postulate about constancy of speed of light and the Lorentz transformation are result of convention. In reality the absolute speed of light in one-way experiment may be another. See for example: Metric theory of relativity.

So it is hard to deduce right ideas about matter on the base of conventional Lorentz kinematics.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Eugeniu,

I was increasingly aghast as I read your attack on the heart of established physics. But what really made me shake my head was towards the end when you left reality behind and wrote that these different spaces are 'invisible' and;

"Different from visible spaces, which have a physical existence within the space of the universe, orthogonal spaces, while physically embedded in the universe, are at the same time external to it."

So just when the ruling paradigm was entirely prostrate and at your mercy you finished it off with the best weapon you had at your disposal, an imaginary orthogonal pillow!!

So back to imaginary space-time and spooky wonderland physics we go then. But I tease you Eugeniu, I really was aghast, but at how brilliant your conception and analysis was ('brilliant' measured in the FQXi metric of how close to my own). But I could forgive you the "external physical embedded internal orthoginal" explanation when I read your last paragraph, and reality existing way beyond the sky. Now that is precisely where I'd like to show you it is, and 'detectable', and more real than you could dream of as the weapon to finish the job.

I've found there are indeed; "two independent physical spaces for relative motion to occur, and not, as Einstein thought, merely two abstract mathematical coordinate systems." The big next step is that these REAL spaces (frames) are "mutually exclusive". Nested at all scales, only existing around matter ('nothing' cannot move) so reference frames are independent REAL physical spaces in their own right, with boundaries where a well known (but not yet well interpreted) physical mechanism implements the effects of transformation.

Too good to be true? Of course it is. Far too good. Completely unbelievable. But true it in none the less. You may note that Fig 3 of my essay bears a passing resemblance to the inclining plane of your nicely interpolated Minkowski one. Here it makes a simpler point, that 'light vectors' is the wrong concept, and 'paths' are not normal to causal wavefronts. But do read the essay (and my last few here) before I overload you with more. Vesselin also promised to read it.

best wishes

Peter

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Eugeniu,

You present some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. I agree that frames of reference should not be equated with coordinate systems.

2. Amanda Gefter has written an interesting essay here called "Cosmic Solipsism." This view is somewhat similar to your statement that different frames of reference are independent spaces, since each observer has his/her own frame of reference in relativity. You might be interested in reading it.

3. Another hint of "multispaces" in standard physics is Feynman's sum-over-histories version of quantum theory. This hint arises in the following way: in his 1948 paper Feynman discussed summing over particle trajectories in Euclidean spacetime and thereby recovered "standard" quantum theory, with its Hilbert spaces, operator algebras, Schrodinger equation, etc. Feynman was able to take all the trajectories to be in the same space because he was working with a background-dependent model, meaning that the ambient Euclidean space was assumed to be unaffected by the particle moving in it.

Now, if general relativity has taught us anything, it is that "spacetime" and "matter-energy" interact, so different particle trajectories mean different spacetimes. Hence, in a background-independent treatment, Feynman's sum over histories should become a sum over independent spaces, with a different space corresponding to each particle trajectory. His original version should be viewed as a limiting case in which the effect of the particle on the spacetime is very small.

However, it would really be more correct to retain the independent spaces even in the limit... so some form of multispace model seems absolutely necessary for quantum theory!

I enjoyed reading your essay! Take care,

Ben Dribus

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin