Dear John

I share your opinion in full context . I argue that consciousness is a part of our Universe, but part which we recognise with our three dimensional brain. What about if consciousness is relality multidimensional and rest of dimensions of consciousness are not recognisonable -for the moment. Dimensionality of brain is very important, for (1) only in 3D Univese there is not crossroads of axons and (2) only in 3D wave equation transmitted pure undisturbed infornation.

By the way for a long time I was involved in heat transport equation study. I have " discovered", (in Plato sense) the thermal Klein-Gordon equation, which as the hyperbolic equation has the thermal wave solution with wave velocity

v=alpha(i)xc, , i=1,2,3 for alpha(1)= 1/137 coupling strength for electromagnetic interaction , alpha(2)= 0.16 for strong interaction, and

alpha(3)=1 for colored quarks interaction.c= light velocity . All that is contained in our monograph: Thermal processes with attosecond laser pulses, Springer, USA

Miroslaw,

The wonder of discovery ... it is truly a joy is it not? And those coincidences ... more than two dimensions but less than four dimensions. Hamilton would agree completely regarding the uniqueness of a three dimensional universe.

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

``...which as the hyperbolic equation has the thermal wave solution with wave velocity "

The dispersion equation seems to describe a point source and sink and waves if the velocity is high. To get the double slit experiment, I assumed the plenum (or ether if you prefer) wave velocity to be much greater than the velocity of light. The plenum has a density at each point. The diffusion (heat) equation has a long term 1/r term from a source or sink. This is needed for gravity.

Treating a second time derivative (hyperbolic) equation as heat transport equation (or diffusion of a scalar to get 1/r) seems odd to me. How do you get 1/r dependence?

Hodge

Dear Miroslaw,

Yours is a nice essay, pretty clear. I gave your essay a 9, and down graded it by one point because of a couple of funny aspects, such as referencing equation 1.181 that made things a bit odd. There is I think another aspect to this, which is Bott periodicity and the 8-fold (mod-8) condition with the dimension of spaces. The Cayley numbers 1, 2, 4, 8 play a role in the structure of division algebras, and quaternion bundles on SU(2) or SO(4) have a moduli space of 5 dimensions. The dimension of space is involves with the quaternion Hopf fibration. With quaternion Hopf fibration 3 --- > 7 ---- > 4 there is a connection between dim = 3 and 4, with 7 as the "linking space." I think this has something to do with your observation about 2, 3, 5, 8. I am less clear about whether this continues with the Fibonacci sequence. However, 13 mod 8 is 5, 21 mod 8 is 5, 34 mod 8 is 5, 55 mod 8 is 7, 89 mod 8 is 1, 144 mod 8 is 0, 233 mod 8 is 1, 377 mod 8 is 1 and so forth. A computer program might be written to find what "FIBO mod 8" looks like for a large set of numbers. Then maybe a theorem could be proposed and proven. Maybe this excludes the number 6. It might be that this gives 0 and either Cayley numbers and 2, 3, 5, and 8.

You might be interested in my essay where I discuss aspect of the Bott periodicity and the mod-8 structure. I am largely interested in connection between what are at first apparently unrelated things.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2320

Cheers LC

    Dear Lawrence

    Thank you very much for your comment. To be sure I am rather weak in advanced math . Your essay is very interesting and opened new horizon in my understanding of Universe. I must say that number 8 was for me rather hard to understand in the context of Universe After reading your essay I am filling better :). Without hesitation I valued it highly 10

    My best regards

    Miroslaw

    PS I apologise for that damned formula numer. I was after two surgical eyes intervention and my visus recover very slowly !

    Thanks for your assessment of my essay. I suppose you have not entered it yet, and somebody gave it a 1. I might look this up, but if the Fibonacci sequence in a mod-8 setting does not have the number 6 that might be curious. We would then have the numbers 2, 3, 5, 8 as one set, 1, 2, 4, 8 as one set and 0 has having some sort of relationship with each other that might lead to surprises.

    Cheers LC

    Dear John

    The method is simple. Yukawa was the first! For in my modified Thermal Klein -Gordon Equation I have mass term. With the mass term I derived Yukawa potential with 1/r dependence

    My best regards

    Miroslaw

    8 days later

    Dear Miroslaw,

    I just read your nice essay. While wishing you speedy recovery from your health challenges, I have two assignments for you to think and work out.

    1. You say by conservation of mechanical energy T V = constant in orbits. Can you calculate the Total energy at Perihelion and the Total energy at aphelion, is there not a difference? By Total, is the sum of the Potential and Kinetic at each position. From the formulae, the Total energy (P.E. K.E.) is lower at perihelion than it was at aphelion. Where has the 'lost' energy disappeared to? Then from whence is it regained after perihelion and replenished at aphelion?

    2. You talked about centripetal force acting and Newton tells us that a force continues to act in its direction unless opposed by another force. After perihelion, the orbiting body starts moving in a direction opposite the centripetal force. If Newton is correct, we must search for a force acting to oppose the centripetal attraction force, do you agree?

    When you have the time you may also wish to read my essay and ask some questions.

    Best regards,

    Akinbo

      Dear Akinbo

      The conservation of total energy for non-dissipative systems is out of discussion. However if you take into account the structure of interplanetary space you will realise that the orbits of the planet are shrinking due to tha interaction of the planets with interplanetary medium. In any case the planetary systems with the interplanetary ( very low density gases ) medium included are not stable!

      Regards

      Mirosław

      Dear Professor Kozlowski,

      It would be physically impossible for "interplanetary space" to exist.

      Cheers,

      Joe Fisher

      Dear Joe Fisher

      Your joke is fine!I have buyed it

      . By the way Wikipedia is rather serious. Best Mirosław

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Jump to: navigation, search

      Look up interplanetary in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

      Interplanetary may refer to:

      Interplanetary space, the space between the planets of the Solar System

      Interplanetary spaceflight, travel between planets

      The interplanetary medium, the material that exists in interplanetary space

      • [deleted]

      • Post #16

      Dear Professor Kozlowski,

      Abstract definitions of abstract "interplanetary space" abound. The real planet earth that we actually know something about is embedded in a real material atmosphere. Real physical conditions must be consistent throughout the real Universe. There is no such a thing as "planetary space". There is no such thing as space.

      Glad to help you understand reality,

      Joe Fisher

      I do apologize.

      Dear Professor Kozlowski,

      Of course it is not your fault that you do not understand how the real Universe is occurring. You have been taught that light comes from the stars. It does not. Real light stays near its source. Real stars are held in place by real stellar radiation. Real planets are held in place by real atmospheric accumulation. There is no inner or outer space. It is quite a simple system.

      Do let us agree on this matter,

      Joe Fisher

      Dear Joe Fisher

      I agree with you, I do not understand for what the Universe was created.

      My best regards

      M.Kozłowski

      Dear Sir,

      Dimension is the perception of differentiation between the internal structural space and external relational space of objects. Since we perceive through electromagnetic interaction, where the electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicularly, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. These are invariant under mutual transformation and can be resolved into 10 different combinations. Thus, the n-dimensional space is a figment of imagination. After failure to find the extra large or compact dimensions, we should not continue with this and scrap all papers dealing with fantasy.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Dear Miss Sujatha Jagannathan

      I read your essay with grat pleasure. As a matter of facts I think that only by mutual inteactions of west and east mystical picture of the Universe we can understand MAN-UNIVERSE AS AN ENTITY. I give 10 for your essay.

      Regards

      Mirosław

      15 days later

      Dear Kozlowski,

      Number rules the Universe, it is no doubt.

      The problem is where to start.

      I point out the views of Ruder Boskovic, who anticipated some scientific achievements two centuries earlier.

      Thus, for him there are zeros of force, cohesion and non-cohesion limits. He subdivides them to zeros by zero, first, second... order. The determination of these zeros is of fundamental importance. My view is that it is easier to determine the zeros lower order. In this sense, the Fibonacci series is ideal but not a zero order. I think it is easier to reach conclusions which have the power of prediction in physics using the following mathematical concepts:

      bit (it was the subject of the contest FQXi 2013);

      exp (x) (You know the unique features of this function);

      Euler's identity.

      Suitable use of pervious can describe features of the physical World.

      If you agree with me, part of the solution can be found in my essay.

      Best Regards,

      Branko Zivlak

      Miroslaw,

      My take from your essay finds a novel approach to math, its aesthetics, and its failure to explain all natural phenomena. I thought of the Nova series on Math and Nature: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/describing-nature-math.html wondering if you'd seen it. Its perspective reminds me of yours.

      Considering your different perspective, I would like your thoughts on my essay.

      Jim