On Dimensions & Relativities by james r. akerlund

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

Jim

The quote (ie first paragraph) is a post from Joe on Eckards blog (14/6 14.30). Joe picked up on a point, which was not relevant anyway to the point I was making to Eckard. So in responding to that (14/6 03.47) I asked Joe to continue this particular exchange on his own blog. But he responded with 14/6 14.30. So I then repeated that post on Joe's blog and responded.

You have made a similar point yourself, ie about comments on any given blog being restricted to comments on the essay associated with that blog.

Perhaps we can now move on, and you could comment on that point about St Pauls, or the comments I did post about your essay.

Paul

James,

Is the question and answer "Is the Universe unreal? Yes" real?

James,

Fascinating essay. Quite unique. I had to read it twice and I couldn't find a flaw in the logic I found.

I also find special relativity flawed, also proposing an optical illusion, and also address the Born Rule in my essay (as one leg of an ontological construction). I never supported the consequences of decoherence Everett proposed, which I suppose comes from studying quantum optics and looking closely into detection (again I discuss) but I do agree that dimensions are fundamental (i.e. wavelength, and do love your different and very original derivation and thinking.

However I think I may have found a possible problem. It's kind of at the beginning. Studying the starting assumptions, and considering in terms of the real universe not mathematics;

What if the reflective Law; a = a is false?

What would happen if quantum uncertainty means that number do not commute?

I actually decided to check the truth of the fundamental proposition a = a for nature some time ago. I still haven't managed to verify it. As an astronomer I've looked everywhere in the universe and can't find two things precisely alike. I've checked on Earth too. In forests for trees, cities for people, snowflakes, even grains of sand! Everything observable, above quantum scale, indicates a = a may be false! I again axiomise this in my essay as it allows interesting results.

Of course I agree a = a is perfect for mathematics, as a 'good approximation' of nature, but I suggest it does then seem to draw the line Dirac proposed. But anyway; back to your essay. what would the implications be for reality if a = a were a wrong starting assumption? (I assume the other two laws are also then wrong.) The triumvirate, logic, reality and maths do then all seem to be freed of paradox. In this universe anyway.

But right or wrong has no effect on the quality and value of an essay, so I commend you on yours. Your last line reminded me very much of my last years essay (also perhaps too dense for most like this one) "dimensions are the stage on which particles or bits do their great acts." (Did you ever get to meet 'Eddie and the electrons'?) With that I can 100% agree!

Well done. I hope you can also follow mine, and comment.

Peter

Jim

"I would have to reply that if it is a "wild goose chase", then there are literally billions of people catching that goose and eating it. Our world is based on the correct predictions of Einetein's special relativity"

They are on the 'goose chase' because they do not realise it is not observational light, just light at a theoretical constant speed, ie a constant reference against which to calibrate distance and duration. You find an example of observation in Einstein. There is always light, but nobody sees with it. When Cox & Forshaw explain it, they use a light beam clock.

They are not 'catching and eating it'. The mistakes Einstein made were counterbalancing. He did not understand how timing works (following Poincare's principle of simultaneity), which meant he invoked an 'extra' layer of time. He conflated reality and the light based representation thereof, which meant he did not identify a timing differential. He alluded to doing so-timings the same if in the "immediate proximity", which is incorrect anyway, but what somebody thinks they are doing, means to do, is irrelevant, it is what they do which matters. These two times are the same. In effect, Einstein shifted the timing differential to the wrong end of the physical process. There is no timing differential in existence, it occurs uniquely at any given time. The difference occurs in the receipt of the light based representation, which is fundamentally a function of spatial position.

[There are the first 24 paras of a paper on this on my essay blog]

The other main point to realise in unravelling this mess, is that SR is not 1905. SR, as defined by Einstein involves:

So, special relativity, as defined by Einstein, involves:

-only motion that is uniform rectilinear and non-rotary

-only fixed shape bodies

-only light which travels in straight lines at a constant speed

It is special because there is no gravitational force (or more precisely, no differential in the gravitational forces incurred). This is a statement of a hypothetical circumstance which is of no use. But he thought it resolved the "only apparently irreconcilable" problem between the two postulates. Which is does not. And it does not because the second postulate is irrelevant, Einstein does not deploy it as defined (this is the 'wild goose chase'). But, yet again, people have not read what the originals actually say. 1905 involves two different states which cannot co-exist, ie in vacuo & not in vacuo. Light is in vacuo, but 'matter' is not, because it undergoes length alteration, and light is just an entity moving at a theoretical constant speed. SR is a circumstance which is effectively nothing. Then there is GR.

Relativity is wrong, there is no relativity in physical existence.

"I guess you are OK with the x dimension..."

What I say is that given what dimension is, then "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". We conceptualise space via a matrix. I do not know how many this is. Existence is only spatial. t is concerned with the turnover rate of realities, the rate at which the existential sequence progresses, there is only one reality, ie physically existent state, at a time.

Maths is a representational device of reality, it is not reality. "You see in math, you can propose a limitless number of dimensions to work in..." Yes, but we do not inhabit that existence. I can propose that this existence is a shoot em up game, but there is no experienceable evidence to support that belief either.

Paul