Dear Gary,

My apologies for this late reply. I read your article several times, needing to step back.

Well, I entirely agree that the transformation of a n-D space over real numbers into a space over complex numbers gives at least a n-D+1 space. Each high-school student discovering complex numbers knows that this stage of her/his mathematical life implies an extension from the real line to the complex plan having a real and an imaginary dimension. This point is generalizable to any passage from a real vector space to a complex one.

Personally I always thought that current formulations like "The passage from Newtonian physics to SR is a passage from 3-D physics to 4-D physics" are not really exact, and that the correct formulation is "The passage from Newtonian physics to SR is a passage from 4-D physics to 5-D physics." Obviously, Newtonian physics needing 3 space coordinates and one time coordinates operates over a real 4-D vector space. The essential difference between Newtonian physics and SR is that in Newtonian physics the 3 spatial coordinates and the time coordinate are mathematically speaking identical, whereas in SR, spatial coordinates and the time coordinate are equivalent but not identical. Within Newtonian physics, there is no mean to distinguish mathematically the real time coordinate from the in turn real space coordinates. In SR, the intervention of i say in time intrinsically distinguishes the latter from space. Well, but because of its respectively real and imaginary dimensions, time is a plan. So SR operates over 5 dimensions.

Now, "historically" speaking, if your approach leads to a "coincidence" with the result of the Paul Scherrer Institute experience rectifying the diameter of the proton, it is not simply a "coincidence." Thanks to symmetry in prediction and retrodiction, a theoretical result going with something already known, but obtained on a different basis, is equivalent to a confirmed prediction.

But for obvious heuristic reasons, the confirmation of a prediction about something for the moment absolutely hypothetical would be more striking.

Do you think that your approach implies such possibilities?

Once again, all the best;

Yours sincerely

Peter

    Peter,

    Many thanks for reading and commenting upon my essay. I am flattered that you would read it several times and consider it so carefully. Also, many thanks for your vote of support. It appears that you have offset one of the 8 one-bombs I have received.

    It is clear to me that you understand exactly what I intended with this essay. In answer to the question at the end of your post, the answer is YES! In fact, this is why my essay only loosely fits the essay topic. I have no other means of reaching a technical audience.

    The coincidences here are several. First, is the value of 6*pi^5 itself. I think the exponent five corresponds to the system dimensions and I think the value 6 corresponds to the 3 real dimensions plus the 3 complex dimensions.

    The second coincidence involves the calculated values for diameter and velocity. The calculated proton size is accurate. However, the calculated velocity appears not to be accurate. But this could be a matter of interpretation.

    In a post above, Colin Walker states that the velocity associated with the Cosmic Microwave Background is much smaller than the value that I state and he gives a numerical value. The value I present is exactly 5 times the value that he states. You might be able to assist here. I remember from either math or statistics that there is a type of average where a value is divided by the number of degrees of freedom that a system has. So, in this case, that would be 5. So, if the problem is formulated correctly, the velocity associated with the CMB would be the velocity I calculate divided by 5. That makes a third interesting coincidence.

    The question is exactly as you state it ... Is 3-D space curved within 4-D space-time, or is 4-D space-time curved within 5-D space (quantum-space-time?)?

    Your statement regarding time being a plane is correct in my opinion. I think that we experience a scalar time that then operates upon the complex plane to produce two time values. One is used by GR and the other is used by QM. Dr. Crowell commented in a post above that I have presented a bi-quaternion. That makes sense since it is the sum of a real and a complex quaternion. That also means that there are only 5 dimensions needed vs the 8 dimensions of the complete octonion group. Equation 2 seems natural to produce these two time values since it adds a term to the Lorentz Transform to produce a form of Euler's Equation.

    There is a rather subtle point that I should also mention. When applying the Lorentz Transform to mass for example, we would normally apply it to the entire mass of the atom ... meaning the nucleus and the electrons. What I propose differs from this in that the LT is only applied to the nucleus. The electrons of a neutral atom are taken to be stationary vibrations that arise from the vacuum. They do not move with the nucleus but rather are pulled from the vacuum as the nucleus passes through space. This provides a tangible medium for light and for action at a distance. Since all particle accelerators use charged particles rather than neutral atoms, I am not sure how to falsify this by experiment. Perhaps there is some way to apply the photo-electric effect to something moving at high speed. Or perhaps there is some way of modifying the Stern-Gerlach experiment.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

    Hi Gary,

    You have reviewed my theory some times ago. But in my new essay I have more interesting developments. I derive Newtons gravitation(long distance) law from the SAME system that generate all the quantum mechanical results. Moreover, the simulations that predict the electron and the proton now I find an analog of it in the standard physics via Helmann potential which is a combination of Coulomb and Yukawa potentials. The proton radius that I get in my simulation is close to .815 fm, maybe there is some link between our theories but I don't see it. Thanks for your attention.

    last year essay

    this year essay

    for gravity the particle "p" has the correct energy

    [link:www.reality-theory.net/gravity.htmlgravity[/link]

      Gary, Phil, Jonathan,

      I communicated with Fischbach, suggesting that the neutrino output of the sun, assumed constant, would be denser when the earth is closest to the sun and vice versa. If, as I believe, radioactive nuclei may be triggered by neutrinos this could account for their observed variation in radioactivity as a function of orbital position. I think they either bought this argument or were unaware of a better argument.

      What a powerhouse of ideas FQXi brings together annually.

      Best regards to all,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Gary,

      We have each reviewed the other's essays, so this is just a personal note. In reading comments on essays I generally find your comments and Stefan Weckbach's comments to be friendly, sincere, original, informed, and interesting.

      Those are very good qualities.

      With best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Adel,

      Thanks for having a read and commenting. We might be working the same problem from a slightly different perspective. I will read your essay, comment, and score ASAP. The contest is winding down so we must all act quickly near the end.

      Bets Regards and Good Luck,

      Gary Simpson

      Way cool!

      I just saw this, after spotting your comment with my name, back on your thread Ed. Yes there is a lot of great communication going on here.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

      Dear Gary

      Your work is amazing! And promising!

      To fully understand its interest, I will have to analyze your papers, but I cannot do it now, I have to do it with time for fully seeing how your 5D geometry and my own ideas can couple. A purely mathematical theory needs some physical support besides fitting data and I am interested in seeing what kind of concepts about the nature of particles can be compatible with your analysis.

      My essay, as yours, has behind it a much deeper work. The model of Earth's past climate I present is built from data but I already knew that it had to be so because I have discovered something about the expansion of space that implies it. What I discovered is the one hypothesis no one considered, as I mention in the essay: it is not the space that expands but matter that decays. Space expansion is as apparent as the rotation of the skies, a consequence of the decrease of standard units, established from matter properties. You can see the similarities with Ptolemy model, with dark energy dragging stars away as celestial spheres dragged them around and dark matter in the role of epicycles (explaining the motion of galaxies instead of planets). And other similarities, like a distant universe made of stuff not available locally and that changes (rotates / expands) while locally it is invariant. Note that I do not think that these models are "mistakes"; they are models of data as obtained and are a necessary first step in the discovery process - without Ptolemy model, Copernicus could not have made his work, nor me without the space expansion model. I have a draft paper presenting my solution for the cosmological problem and apparently almost everybody quickly understands that it has to be the correct solution, judging by the emails I received and by the number of downloads (over 900) (vixra.org/abs/1107.0016).

      Now, how can this decay of matter, a very slow exponential decrease of size, mass and charge, be expressed by your exponential function? Possibly it is just a question of defining the proper units, as I do in the above paper. I think that field and mass or charge or just aspects of the same kind of entity, which is decreasing in intensity while expanding through space.

      You are right that if life becomes extinct it will never recover in Earth; but it's worse than that - if endotherms disappear, life evolution will be blocked at the reptile level.

      In relation to the "bombs" (five or six) in my essay, I know that there are groups of persons that see my work as a threat; and I know it because they emailed me saying it when I put the paper in vixra! However, I was not expecting it in this contest. Curiously, mathematicians have contacted me with supporting words, advices and even an invitation to submit to a journal in mathematics. The fact is that this is a very delicate matter, I understand the problem this change of paradigm represents and I worked out a solution; but it requires cooperation instead of "bombs". To publish my work in a journal of mathematics or in a non-occidental scientific system would be a disaster for occidental physics and I want to avoid it. My presence in this contest is a kind of test. At least, I had the joy to find a brave person like you! And also some interesting exchange of ideas with other authors.

      I vote in accordance with my admiration for your work and your spirit.

      I hope you find the right person to complement your work in the physical side. And I hope to keep in touch with you.

      All the best,

      Alfredo

        Hi Gary,

        You take a different approach to reality to me. You seem to say that numbers including complex numbers exist, whereas I say that the numbers (including complex ones and pi) and law-of-nature equations symbolically represent an underlying reality: the underlying reality is what exists. So while you might say that the mathematical universe is the full extent of what exists, I would say that there are aspects of reality that can't be represented mathematically.

        One thing I don't understand: is there such a thing as a "true rest frame"? Surely, from your point of view, such a thing could only have existed at the beginning of the universe; or are you saying that the five dimensional coordinates frame is the "true rest frame"? From my point of view, perhaps a "true rest frame" would be the aspects of reality that can't be represented mathematically.

        Regards,

        Lorraine

          Alfredo,

          Many thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. And of course also for the vote of support. I don't know if my essay will reach the final judging but it will be close.

          It is also good to see such enthusiasm. If you look at some of my other work, I recommend reading "Quaternion Dynamics - Part 1" first and then "Part 2". The evolution from P-1 to P-2 is very natural.

          The one-bombs can be very discouraging. It happened several times actually. Entire groups os essays were all scored with 1 values together. I noticed this and I noticed once that someone else went through the same group with scores of 10 ... so the people who were one-bombed got 2 votes with a score of 5.5. That seemed like a pretty clever way to discourage the one-bombing so the next few times it happened, I did the 10 bombing. Then the one-bomber adapted and started to score with 3's. It was not a perfect result but it was an improvement.

          Best Regards and Good Luck,

          Gary Simpson

          • [deleted]

          • Post #101

          Lorraine,

          Thanks for reading and commenting ... and voting:-)

          I am an engineer by education. I think there is an underlying physical reality that is described by mathematics. Mathematics is useful to me to the extent that it provides a method to analyze the physical world. There are also many areas of "Pure Mathematics" that I have never studied. I do not know whether or not there is a "Platonic Realm" of pure ideas or not. I do know that there are many instances where "Pure Mathematics" has found an application to "Applied Mathematics" in the physical word. Geometric Algebra seems to be one of the more recent examples of this. I am content to let the true mathematicians frolic in these realms to their heart's content.

          The difference regarding our thinking is that I need evidence to make me believe that there are "one-off" rules. If two hypotheses make identical predictions then I can not choose one over the other. My default condition therefore is to go with what has already been established unless something else is favored by Occam's Razor. So in short, it is not that I have not heard your ideas or that I have not understood your ideas. You simply have not satisfied your obligations according to the scientific method.

          Ah yes .... the true rest frame. You've caught me. I am one of those aether heretics. The v in Eq 2 is the velocity of the observer's reference frame. Equation 2 let's me return to the concept of a true rest frame and make new predictions. For example, I would predict that if you were in a galaxy that is moving away from us at near light speed, the Mp/Me ratio in your reference frame would be many thousands of times larger than in our reference frame. But, if 2 reference frames are identical, then the equation 2 for each of them simply cancel ... kind of like multiplying by one.

          This also lets me reinterpret our place in the universe. If we are moving much more slowly than other reference frames, then we might not be at the center of the universe, but we have moved away from the center by a snaller distance than other reference frames. Essentially, I do not believe that relative motion A -> B is equivalent to relative motion B -> A. This is in contradiction to part of Relativity. My saving grace is that I want empirical validation.

          The 5-D geometry allows any 3-D space to have its own reference frame by using a different phase angle in the complex plane.

          Best Regards and Good Luck,

          Gary Simpson

          Lorraine,

          I don't know how but somehow I was logged out. The above post was obviously me.

          Best Regards,

          Gary Simpson

          Dear Gary Simpson,

          It is definitely difficult to promote a new idea. I admit having problems with your "absolute velocity of the observer" and your "observed affect".

          Consider me almost an aetherist who denies the aether as something to refer to.

          Perhaps we both already failed getting sufficient attraction for enforcing a serious scrutiny by leading experts.

          I am aware of many sins of mine against the necessity of serving lazy expectations, in particular by my one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum instead of Einstein's Poincaré synchronization.

          My critical comments on unwarranted interpretation of complex calculus are to be found in earlier essays of mine. I hope for your comment because you dealt with i too.

          Regards,

          Eckard Blumschein

          Gary

          Thanks, and for the rating. I'm about to return the honour. I've only ever seen Pythagorus as 2D triangles. The inverse Cos values derivation seems to be it's 3D dynamic analogue. Isn't it? (I was exploring that diagrammatically in my Bob & Alice essay)

          I didn't realize I was using quaternions! I really do need help!

          Very best

          Peter

          Eckard,

          Thanks for reading and commenting. I almost think the aether is the complex plane plus a unit space vector. We are in the space vector but we are touching the aether.

          You are skeptical of my Equation 2. This is understandable. If it is not correct, then how or why does the proton diameter calculation work? You must believe that it is also a coincidence. I can understand such a belief. It is simply hard for me to believe in two successive and linked coincidences. It could be true, but it strains my credibility.

          I suspect that AE fully understood the difficulty of measuring the one-way speed of light and that is why he choose to use the round-trip time instead. I would not call that "laziness" on your part but rather a recognition of the difficulty of the problem from the empiricist's point of view.

          I read, commented upon, and scored your essay some time ago. The score was in the range 5-10.

          In any event, it is likely that the last score I received - a two - was enough to keep me out of the finals.

          Best Regards and Good Luck,

          Gary Simpson

          Gary,

          I am amazed to see how many authors here firmly follow Galileo in his belief about the language of the Book of Nature, but do not dare to ask how it all might happened.

          Your support of our essay hints that some of them still ask, but not necessarily show that.

          Thanks again for your support,

          Alexey Burov.

          Dear Gary,

          Concerning one-bombs, I know in turn the phenomenon. Any good rating I received - two or three 10 and others between 7 and 10 - systematically was followed by a 1, and during the last contest it was the same. Well, this is not a problem. Personally, my motivation of participating is discussion and exchange of ideas, and I am sure that it is the same for you. The real problem for me was that I had not enough time to communicate with more people.

          Thanks for your reply to mine. It is sure that we share a common vision about quaternations. Concerning time reduced to a scalar, it results from the prerelativist illusion of an absolute time, whereas SR introducing ict necessarily gives to time a real and a imaginary dimension.

          I wish you good luck and also a good continuation for your research.

          Yours sincerely

          Peter

          Dear Gary,

          I posted a little reply after your answer to my first one.

          Good luck

          Peter