On Dimensions & Relativities by james r. akerlund

James

Space (as in distance, dimension, size, etc) is implied by what comprises existence. That is, whatever exists 'needs' space, and it is an artefact thereof. In other words, distance, for example, is the spatial difference between physical states which are existent at the same time.

There is no relativity of existence in any reality. Time is the rate of turnover of realities (ie physically existent states). That is, there is no time within any given realty, because a reality can only be one physically existent state, and can only exist in that state at a specific time. There was no observational light in Einstein, nobody was observing anything, ie questions about light speed are a wild goose chase.

In establishing what constitutes dimension, distance and space in our reality, we use a reference which conceives of any given physical reality being divided into a grid of spatial positions. And the constituent physically existent states of that reality have definitive dimension/size/shape (ie spatial footprint), which can be defined as spatial positions 'occupied' at the given time of existence. 'Mapping' other states that were existent at the same given time, would reveal not only both the spatial footprint of those states and their comparability with each other, but also, distance. Which is usually measured between the two nearest dimensions of the existent states, but could include any combination of dimensions. And depending on the spatial relationship of the states involved, distance could involve a relationship in terms of separation of the states, or one within another, that again being with respect to specified dimensions.

Dimension is a specific aspect of spatial footprint, relating to the distance along any possible axis of that 'occupation'. So, three is the minimum number of spatial dimensions that is ontologically correct at the highest level of conceptualisation of any given physical reality. But is not what is physically existent. At that existential level, the number of possible dimensions is half the number of possible directions that the smallest substance in physical existence could travel from any single spatial point.

Paul

Dear Sir,

Wheeler's definition of "It" as "apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits" has to be read with "registering of equipment-evoked responses". The binary unit, or bit, is a message representing one of two choices: 1 or 0 - on or off - yes or no. The 'on's are coded (written in programming language) with 1 and the 'off's with 0. By themselves 1 or 0 does not mean anything. Related to a context, 1 signals some concept representing information about materials objects exists in that context and 0 means it does not exist. Except signaling the agreement or non-agreement with something predefined (i.e., a concept), binary has no other use. You have replaced one code (1) by another (u) without changing the basic pattern.

Thus, "It" stands for the information content or the concept about something, which is the "Bits". Information is always about something, say, some material, but it not the material itself. There is no need to bring in several weird concepts to deny this simple truth. If "our universe was information versus particle physics, or Bit vs. It", how do you define 'It' and 'Bit'? If particle physics is not information on particle behavior, what is it? Incidentally, how can we "know" the value of π in other Universes? Rather, what is the proof that other Universes exist and the value of their physical constants are different from ours? How can we "know" that the two systems are in "uniform translatory motion relative to each other?" No fantasy please. Let us talk physics.

The term γ, which, as we have explained in many threads here and which many participants supported, really does not change anything except perception of the object by different observers unrelated to the time evolution of the object proper. Hence it cannot be treated as actually affecting the time-evolution of the object. Yet, in SR & GR, it affects both "x" and "t" transformations. In some experimental situations γ is nearly correct due to Doppler shift. But in a majority of situations, γ fails, sometimes very badly. Also γ is the main term in the mass increase equation.

To calculate volumes or densities in a field, one must calculate both radius (length) and mass; and the term comes into play in both. Yet, Einstein had wrongly assigned several length and time variables in SR, giving them to the wrong coordinate systems or to no specific coordinate systems. He skipped an entire coordinate system, achieving two degrees of relativity when he thought he had only achieved one. Because his x and t transforms were compromised, his velocity transform was also compromised. He carried this error into the mass transforms, which infected them as well. This problem then infected the tensor calculus and GR. This explains the various anomalies and variations and the so-called violations within Relativity.

Einstein has used equations x2+y2+z2-c2t2 = 0 and ξ2 + η2 + ζ2 - c2 τ2 = 0 to describe two spheres that the observers see of the evolution of the same light pulse. Apart from the fact that the above equation of the sphere is mathematically wrong (it describes a sphere with the center at origin, whose z-axis is zero, i.e., not a sphere, but a circle), it also shows how the same treats time differently. Since general equation of sphere is supposed to be x2+y2+z2+Dx+Ey+Fz+G = 0, both the equations can at best describe two spheres with origin at (0,0,0) and the points (x,y,z) and (ξ, η, ζ ) on the circumference of the respective spheres. Since the second person is moving away from the origin, the second equation is not applicable in his case. Assuming he sees the same sphere, he should know its origin (because he has already seen it, otherwise he will not know that it is the same light pulse. In that case, there is no way to relate both pulses) and its present location. In other words, he will measure the same radius as the other person, implying: c2t2 = c2 τ2 or t = τ.

Again, if x2+y2+z2-c2t2 = x'2+y'2+z'2-c2 τ 2, t ≠ τ.

This creates a contradiction, which invalidates his mathematics. We do not follow everything blindly. That is superstition. If you find our view wrong, please show it.

The very fact that you are referring to MOND shows that you admit Einstein's mistakes. Because it was proposed to explain gravity, as GR could not explain many phenomenon - specifically it fails miserably outside the Solar system.

Your description of dimension is thoroughly misguided. Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" of all objects from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. We use dimension to describe the state of matter: if it has fixed dimension, it is solid, if it has loose dimension, it is fluid, if it has radiative dimension, it is gas/plasma. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this myth?

You are welcome to read our essay published on May 31, 2013.

Regards,

basudeba

James

Is the Universe real? Yes

Is information real? No

Dear Sir,

Good that you have tempered your aggressive posturing with discussion on weather. We wish you would have kept your commitment of discussing our essay when you visited there. Is there any point in wasting time?

Your first repudiation of our quote: 1 does not stand for nothing; but as we have pointed out, it stands for a code in programming language. Your u is also a code for properties, which can be written as a code in programming language. Hence what is new?

We said: "'It' stands for the information content or the concept about something, which is the 'Bits'. Information is always about something, say, some material, but it not the material itself." That includes particle physics, which is not a everyday man's topic. Hence what is new?

You accept our description of the parallel Universe as fantasy when you admit: "The issue of parallel universes is a very controversial issue in physics." It is sheer waste of public money in the name of research by coming up with incomprehensible gimmicks and changing names from the goddamned particle originally proposed to "God particle", and claim that it provides mass to everything, which is not a true statement. According to the US National Academy of Science (NAS): "In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists". The parallel Universe concept is not based on "observations and experiments". Hence we called it fantasy - you may call it group fantasy. We go only by observations and experiments and reject fantasy even when they are told by big names. Our definition of dimension IS informational, as even after more than a century of failure to find extra dimensions, most scientists are talking about it based on the nineteenth century fiction FLATLANDS. We have shown the true nature and use of dimensions to break this fantasy. You are welcome to prove us wrong.

We have shown that Einstein was wrong in his concepts and you have not commented on our proof. Elsewhere in this forum, we have proved that his process of length measurement is faulty, his method of synchronization violates the principle of relativity, his principle of invariance is a wrong description of facts that leads to Russell's paradox of set theory. Length and mass contraction are only apparent and can be explained by Doppler shift. And finally, his theory of gravitation is wrong.

Two possibilities of measurement suggested by Mr. Einstein in his 1905 paper were:

(a) "The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest", or

(b) "By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of the rod"

The method described at (b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time, (which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct reading due to two reasons:

• If the length of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.

• If the length of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift. Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).

Similarly, we quote from his 1905 paper on the definition of synchronization: "Let a ray of light start at the "A time" tA from A towards B, let it at the "B time" tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the "A time" t'A. In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if: tB - tA = t'A - tB."

"We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:--

1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other."

The concept of relativity is valid only between two objects. Introduction of a third object brings in the concept of privileged frame of reference and all equations of relativity fall. Yet, Mr. Einstein precisely does the same while claiming the very opposite. In the above description, the clock at A is treated as a privileged frame of reference for proving synchronization of the clocks at B and C. Yet, he claims it is relative! We can go on like this.

If we are wrong, as a true scientists, you should either point out the mistakes in our statement or accept it or keep your opinion open subject to further investigation. We cannot blindly accept that Einstein must be right - that is superstition. When you say: "he pioneered a path and I am simply expanding on that path", all you admit is that you have not verified his statements independently, but not only accepted it blindly, but also try to build upon such superstition. We do not follow superstition.

In any case, you admit that "The author hasn't completed the specific details of these two new relativities to give you workable relativities that you can go out and verify". In other words, you wanted to break one mistake into two, in which process you failed. Hence you admit "I don't know."

We never said that "dimensions do not exist without man" nor "putting man in the place of God." That is your interpretation, which is totally wrong. Had you seriously read our essay, you would not have said so. We have said that: "Something makes meaning only if the description remains invariant under multiple perceptions or measurements under similar conditions through a proper measurement system. In communication, as in perception, it is the class or form that remains invariant as a concept. The sequence of sound in a word or signal ceases to exist, but the meaning remains as a concept". Hence we only said that perception makes something meaningful to the observer. We never said that it changes or affects the state of the observable. It exists independently by itself. Thus, dimensions do exist without man. We are waiting for your comment on our essay.

Regards,

basudeba

Jim

I am not sure you are attributing the quote to the right person. But yes I ignored the somewhat rude nature of that response, and made the point, again, on his blog. The simple point being that it is not the 'object' that is unique, but whatever physically existent state it is in at any given time. Or put another way, St Pauls Cathedral, etc, does not exist physically, as we conceive it.

Paul

Interesting essay James. Only read through once so certainly missing both obvious and subtle points you are making; so out of ignorance I ask: what parts of ESR hold in these alternate-relative dimensions, and which ones can be violated? (i.e. frames of reference, constant of c, etc.?)

Thank You.

Yes sir. Sorry about the ambiguity. Get carried away w/ acronyms sometimes.

Dear Sir,

We were half expecting you to join the dots, but you have leapfrogged from one dot to a totally unconnected one. The cat and the virus, both have physical dimension which is a known state, but now you have brought in the concept of superposition, which is the totality of all unknown states till measurement determines the actual state at a given moment. We are not interested in "undead" cats. That is fiction and fantasy - not physics. Through all your post, you have not defined dimension precisely. Hence there is no way to test the fantasy with facts. Neither did you "prove" that our definition and use of dimension is wrong except only telling so.

You have admitted that you can't imagine reality. But that does not justify fiction or fantasy to be pushed as physics. Since you are talking so much about mathematics, let us first discuss its limitations. Mathematics is related to accumulation and reduction of numbers. Since measurements are comparison between similar quantities, mathematics is possible only between similars (linear) or partly similars (non-linear) but never between the dissimilar. We cannot add or multiply 3 protons and 3 neutrons. They can be added only by taking their common property of mass to give mass number. These accumulation and reduction of numbers are expressed as the result of measurement after comparison with a scaling constant (standard unit) having similar characteristics (such as length compared with unit length, area with unit area, volume with unit volume, density with unit density, interval with unit interval, etc). The results of measurements are always pure numbers, i.e., scalar quantities, because the dimensions of the scaling constants are same for both the measuring device and the object being measured and measurement is only the operation of scaling up or down the unit for an appropriate number of times. Thus, mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics. We will show repeatedly that in modern physics there is a mismatch and mix-up between the data, the mathematics and the physical theory.

Mathematics is also related to the measurement of time evolution of the state of something. These time evolutions depict rate of change. When such change is related to motion; like velocity, acceleration, etc, it implies total displacement from the position occupied by the body and moving to the adjacent position. This process is repeated due to inertia till it is modified by the introduction of other forces. Thus, these are discrete steps that can be related to three dimensional structures only. Mathematics measures only the numbers of these steps, the distances involved including amplitude, wave length, etc and the quanta of energy applied etc. Mathematics is related also to the measurement of area or curves on a graph - the so-called mathematical structures, which are two dimensional structures. Thus, the basic assumptions of all topologies, including symplectic topology, linear and vector algebra and the tensor calculus, all representations of vector spaces, whether they are abstract or physical, real or complex, composed of whatever combination of scalars, vectors, quaternions, or tensors, and the current definition of the point, line, and derivative are necessarily at least one dimension less from physical space.

The graph may represent space, but it is not space itself. The drawings of a circle, a square, a vector or any other physical representation, are similar abstractions. The circle represents only a two dimensional cross section of a three dimensional sphere. The square represents a surface of a cube. Without the cube or similar structure (including the paper), it has no physical existence. An ellipse may represent an orbit, but it is not the dynamical orbit itself. The vector is a fixed representation of velocity; it is not the dynamical velocity itself, and so on. The so-called simplification or scaling up or down of the drawing does not make it abstract. The basic abstraction is due to the fact that the mathematics that is applied to solve physical problems actually applies to the two dimensional diagram, and not to the three dimensional space. The numbers are assigned to points on the piece of paper or in the Cartesian graph, and not to points in space. If one assigns a number to a point in space, what one really means is that it is at a certain distance from an arbitrarily chosen origin. Thus, by assigning a number to a point in space, what one really does is assign an origin, which is another point in space leading to a contradiction. The point in space can exist by itself as the equilibrium position of various forces. But a point on a paper exists only with reference to the arbitrarily assigned origin. If additional force is applied, the locus of the point in space resolves into two equal but oppositely directed field lines. But the locus of a point on a graph is always unidirectional and depicts distance - linear or non-linear, but not force. Thus, a physical structure is different from its mathematical representation.

Measurement is not the action of putting a scale to a rod, which is a mechanical action. Measurement is a conscious process of reaching an inference based on the action of comparison of something with an appropriate unit at "here-now". The readings of a particular aspect, which indicate a specific state of the object at a designated instant, (out of an infinite set of temporally evolving states), is frozen for use at other times and is known as the "result of measurement". The states relating to that aspect at all "other times", which cannot be measured; hence remain unknown, are clubbed together and are collectively referred to as the "superposition of states". This concept has not only been misunderstood, but also unnecessarily glamorized and made incomprehensible in the "undead" Schrödinger's cat and other examples. The normal time evolution of the cat (its existential aspect) and the effect of its exposure to poisonous gas (the operational aspect) are two different unrelated aspects of its history. Yet these unrelated aspects have been coupled to bring in a state of coupled-superposition, which is mathematically, physically and conceptually void.

Hope this time you will prove us wrong instead of telling that we are wrong!

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Thank you for appreciating our essay. We have replied to the points raised by you in our thread.

Incidentally, the format of the contest is defective, as unless you have friends, you will not get rated properly. During 2010, we had written to the organizers giving some proof how a cartel voted themselves. We recommended to set up a screening panel to short-list the finalists. But nothing changed. Most people have not read our essay because we are not in their circle. Most of those who have read our essay either have not rated it or not rated it in commensurate with the appreciation they express in their comments. Specifically, because we do not follow the "main stream" science and ask questions that are difficult to answer, we are avoided. Thus, we are sure that we will be voted out and will not reach final consideration stage.

Still, thanks again for your wishes.

Regards,

basudeba