Essay Abstract

The goal of physics is to analyze and understand natural phenomena of the universe - properties of matter, energy, their interaction, and consciousness/observer. Random occurrences are not encountered by chance wandering. There is a causal law putting restrictions on these. The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality. The validity of a mathematical statement rests with its logical consistency. Mathematical laws of dynamics can be valid physical statements, as long as they correspond to reality. Dynamics is more than action of forces moment by moment or calculated over the particle's entire path throughout time. The changeover from LHS to RHS in an equation is not automatic. The sign = or 竊' is not an arithmetic total, but signifies special conditions like dynamical variables or transition states, etc. String theories require 26 or 11 dimensions. M-theory requires 10 dimensions. But scientists have no idea about what these mathematical dimensions are. The strings are said to be excitations in hyperspace in 26 or 11 dimensions of a particle with zero mass and two units of spin. The extra dimensions are thought to be compactified or curled up into tiny pockets inside observable space. The particular vibrations of the strings within a multidimensional hyperspace are thought to correspond to particles that form the basis of all matter and energy. No one knows whether such hyperspace or strings or compactified dimensions exist. Time has come to switch over to physical mathematics. We will show the 10 dimensions in observable space.

Author Bio

seeker for truth.

Download Essay PDF File

Basudeba,

You have 9 pages of build-up followed by 6 points and 4 lines. All of which fit into 3 dimensions.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

    Dear Sir,

    The so-called build up was necessary to remove the misconceptions that has developed for over a Century. It is so deep grained that ALL scientists use extra dimensions without knowing what they are talking about. Hence it was necessary to prove the existing notions wrong.

    We would have appreciated a critical comment from you.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    Basudeba,

    I would have been delighted to give an objective comment. Unfortunately, your understanding of the word "dimension" is so far removed from mine that we are not even speaking the same language. You present 3 dimensions, not 10. The only thing that we agree upon is that time is not a dimension.

    I will simply ask you two questions.

    1. Does your model allow you to make any testable predictions?

    2. Does your model allow you to make any useful calculations?

    BTW, I have not scored your essay yet.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

    Dear Sir,

    You may differ from our views on Dimension, but as you have seen the built-up of 8 pages was only to refute all modern notions on dimension including yours. So at least you could have defended your notion of extra-dimensions. Had we not refuted your notion first, you would have simply refuted our views. But now we find that you do not want to be questioned on your views. Please defend your view on dimension that we have proved wrong before attacking our view.

    Regarding your points whether does our model make testable predictions, we clarify that a model is an evidence-based representation of something that is either too difficult or impossible to display directly. Here the model itself is the evidence, which can be displayed. You can apply it directly to measure the dimension of any object and verify its authenticity. This also replies your other point.

    Regards,

    basudeba

    So, you make no testable predictions and you offer no supporting calculations.

    You do not even abide by Euclid's geometry. Feel free to create your own private little universe with whatever rules and definitions that you wish, but don't expect anyone to join you.

    Now I have scored your essay.

    Gary Simpson

    Dear Seeker for truth, basudeba,

    I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

    Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

    The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

      Respected Sir,

      Kindly read the paper carefully before commenting. We have taken 8 pages to demolish the modern concept of dimension including your concept of "one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension". Dimension cannot be infinite. Hence kindly refute our reasoning and prove your statement before dismissing it outright.

      We never anticipated better marks from you and you could have voted us zero. But kindly consider how long general public will be fooled by some fancy concepts like extra-dimensions? After all science is all about whatever exists in Nature and its mechanism.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      • [deleted]

      • Post #9

      basudeba,

      If we challenge fundamental assumptions and propose unfamiliar replacements, however better, we are heretics and rejected a priori. That's the way we humans employ our brains: Rational analysis is too hard work when it conflicts with comfortable assumptions long and well embedded.

      I found your essay well constructed, well argued, 'original' (apart from a few thousand years!), adequately on topic and interesting. These are the valid criteria on which essays are judged. I also find the fundamental nature and truth of the 10 dimensions entirely correct and logical.

      As you say, it's 'language' that's the problem. We need more words for the varying and non fundamental categories and concepts most are familiar with as 'dimensions'. Some things hide right before our eyes yet can't be distinguished. My own essay deals both with that and the problem in my para 1 above, identifying an important 2nd momentum in OAM which rationalises the failed logic in physics. There are none so blind. But I think and hope you at least will understand and appreciate it.

      From your own I pick out some favourite lines;

      "Equations do not explain the difference in the properties of water from its constituents. It is true in all reactions. Thus, equations do not give complete information.

      Logic is the special proof necessary for knowing the unknown aspects of something generally known. Thus, the validity of a mathematical statement rests with its logical consistency.

      Language is the transposition of some information/command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system.

      Generalizing such partial information misleads. Thus, it cannot be the only language of Nature. There is physics beyond mathematics

      There is no equation for the observer. Yet, the observer has an important role in physics.

      If we re-envision classical and quantum observations as macroscopic overlap of quantum effects, we may solve most problems.

      Our galaxy is a miniature universe, which is spinning around its axis like everything else in the universe. This will explain many observations, without invoking any novel phenomena.

      In visual perception, where the medium is electromagnetic radiation, we need three mutually perpendicular dimensions corresponding to the electric field, the magnetic field and their direction of motion.

      VECTOR SPACE This is not mathematics, but politics, where problems multiply by division. What does it physically mean?

      By convention, depending upon the nature of the force, we designate the field as electric field, magnetic field etc. Why complicate it with unnecessary details which has no physical meaning"

      Finally I do offer some genuine physical meaning to those last two momenta, which it seems as you suggest, are inherently 'coupled'.

      I'd like to discuss your view on inertial frames, my proposition of invalidity of Cartesian 'frame' systems, and fractals with respect to galaxies and universes, and the inherent Hindu assumption of eternal recycling, which you may have seen my published paper on.

      Very well done. Be aware a rise up the local scale is imminent.

      Best wishes

      Peter

      Dear Sir,

      Testable predictions and supporting calculations are needed for the ignorant who studies models. We are describing reality that corresponds to reality. So all you have to do is find the resemblances from everyday world and see whether it conforms to our description or not. We have proved all modern notions including your notion of dimension wrong. Hence we expected you to counter it and justify your notion. We still hope you will do so.

      We do not discuss non-physical concepts in physics papers. As we have posted in our comments in your thread, most people discuss imaginary concepts that are not valid mathematics as if they are real. Kindly comment on that.

      And lastly, we do not follow blindly. That is superstition - not science. We apply our mind and judge everything independently on its merits. Otherwise what for we are called intelligent?

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Dear Sir,

      Thank you very much for not only reading, but also carefully applying your mind to the paper. These two are rare commodities now. It is the age of big data and less analysis, with reductionism and sensationalization compounding the problem to mislead. As you have rightly pointed out, we are treated as a heretic and often rejected. The few remarks above show that. They did not notice that we had proved them wrong, nor did they see what we propose as an alternative. They are asking for testable predictions and calculations though we are not presenting any model, but correspondence to reality. We are not bothered by that. A big coterie is working here which vote for each other. We had written to FQXi repeatedly with proof. So we are not expecting high scores or awards. Our intention is to expose the racket that fictionalizes physics with weird concepts and justifies it using a cloak of incomprehensibility in the name of mathematics, though that itself violates the rules of mathematics.

      Regarding your proposition, we point out two concepts of our ancients: 1) The universe called Jagat because everything in it is ever moving. 2) Everything in the universe is interconnected and interdependent (Madhu Braahmanam). Thus, there is no fixed frame except the galactic center and inertial frames are the reality. Cartesian coordinates (Dik) are arbitrary assumptions that extends infinitely. There is no rule to fix the origin. Hence, along with space, time, coordinates and consciousness are the only four infinities.

      Regarding the inherent Hindu assumption of eternal recycling, we have not seen your papers as you have logged in here as Anonymous. Your signature Peter can be related to many. Hence kindly give more reference. Recycling in our concept is not as is understood in general - scraping and reusing the scrap to build new things. Our concept of recycling has other equivalent terms as pulsation (spanda) or evolution-devolution (unmesha-samkocha). This is related to causality. We believe in multiverses in the sense there are infinite universes unconnected from each other embedded in one basic frame. The totality has some amount of inherent instability, which starts a disturbance in the equipoise background. This breaks the equipoise and spreads out at a very fast rate due to inertia of motion. Since the background was at rest, it generated inertia of restoration (sthitisthaapaka) due to elasticity. This generated a bow-shock effect and brought the forward motion to rest cutting off a volume (anda). This boundary is called Naimishaaranya. The structure is the cosmic egg or Brahmaanda, which is the universe.

      Once the outward motion becomes weak and comes to rest, the reconnection in the interior generates another force, which begins dragging everything towards the center, which obviously moves at a lesser speed. After reaching the center, it bounces back again at reduced speed. This process repeats which reduces the speed of light over the ages. This explains inflation. The repeated outward motion and back pits energy with the background repeatedly generating first various energies (Rishi vamsha) and then particles (Deva vamsha) to charged particles (Soorya-Soma Vamsha). This leads to creation. After certain stage, the whole process reverses - not recycles - to go back to the initial stage of equipoise. The process repeats again and again. To that extent you can call it recycling. However, we use the term recycling (samvatsara) to time evolution.

      Regards,

      basudeba

        Dear basudeba mishra ji,

        Good essay on Physical Mathematics for the space of ten dimensions bringing in the old traditional Indian dimensions ...

        You have written nicely...

        1. "Data is not synonymous with knowledge. Knowledge is the concepts stored in memory. By combining lots of data, we generate something big and different...."

        2. "Already physics is struggling with misguided concepts like extra-dimensions, gravitons, strings, Axions, bare mass, bare charge, etc"

        3. "What is the basic difference between quantum physics and classical physics? Notices of the American Mathematical Society Volume 52, Number 9 published a paper which shows that the theory of dynamical systems used to design trajectories of space flights and the theory of transition states in chemical reactions share the same set of mathematic"

        4. "This makes space-time four-dimensional. It shows that we can specify time using a number. An object remain invariant under mutual transformation of the dimensions: like rotating length to breadth or height, even though the measured value of the new axes change. Time does not fulfill these criteria"

        Have a look at my essay also...

        Best wishes................

        =snp. gupta

          Dear Sir,

          We were thinking of studying your essay, but could not make time as we were frequently going out. Today also we are going out. Next week we will comment on your essay.

          There is a cartel here who vote for each other. In any case, since we are going against the main stream, we invite hostility. But we are not here to win any prizes. We want to stand against the mad rush to fictionalize physics. You might have noticed we took 8 pages to demolish the modern concepts. But no one is talking about that.

          Let us hope for the best.

          Regards,

          basudeba

          Dear Basudeba,

          Very interesting, profound essay and important ideas on the way to the truth. I agree with you: «Dimension is an existential description.»

          In basic science crisis of understanding, crisis of representation and interpretation. An ontological standard basification of knowledge is necessary to introduce with the empirical standard in fundamental physics.

          Kind regards,

          Vladimir

            Dear Mishra,

            Thank you for your interesting and well written essay. I have also thought that the fundamental assumptions behind the idea of extra "spatial" dimensions might be questionable. Unfortunately, I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician and so, can't really make specific comparisons. However, I appreciate the new perspective you have suggested. Perhaps you'll find time to read and comment on my own essay. Also, I would appreciate a reference source for the final 10 conditions/characteristics(?) that you list at the end of your work.

            Good Luck,

            Willam Ekeson

              Dear Sir,

              Thank you very much. There is a dire need to strongly resist fictionalization of physics. Hence our ideas are directed towards proving some of the modern concepts as wrong and explain it using physical mathematics instead of flowing with the tide of mathematical fiction in the name of physics.

              We were out of station and returned today. We will go through your essay and comment soon.

              Regards,

              basudeba

              Dear Sir,

              Thanks for your encouraging comments. There is a dire need to strongly resist fictionalization of physics. Hence our ideas are directed towards proving some of the modern concepts as wrong and explain it using physical mathematics instead of flowing with the tide of mathematical fiction in the name of physics.

              The ideas contained in this post are not new, but thousands of years old. We had given the references in the bibliography. Prashastapaada of yore in his book COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTIES OF MATTER (PADAARTHA DHARMA SAMGRAHA)written in Sanskrit, had described these in Dik Prakarana based on an ancient treatise by Kanaada. These books might have been translated into English.

              Regards,

              basudeba

              basudeba

              T'was I! (-logged out).

              Thanks for your interesting response. There's one major difference with the astronomical accretion and Active Galactic Nucleus (observed) dynamics leading to quasar jets (and a pattern reproduced at large scale in the CMB.; It is that speed significantly INCREASES towards the centre. The more mass the faster it spins. Like a ballerina or ice skater who speeds up by pulling in her arms. The toroid spin and contraflow jets are what rips apart and re-ionizes the matter (all that is actual discovery not theory).

              The paper analysing the cosequences is here;

              DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or

              http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf or

              www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_WITH_BARS

              But I think even more important now is the exposure of a simple Classical QM derivation in my essay, addressing the topic directly but plus a whole lot more!

              There's also a video; Vimeo; Classic QM

              I agree with your 'cartel' suggestion. I got hit with three '1's! early on before people even had a chance to read it! I see you may have had some too. Your essay deserves far better and my score for it is going on now. I hope you'll read, comment and do the same for mine.

              Very best of luck.

              Peter (Jackson)

              Dear Sir,

              Thanks for the response. We will soon examine your comments here and also go through your essay.

              Regards,

              basudeba

              Hi dear Basudeba,

              I remember you from early contest as a like minded! Now I will study your essay and I hope my work also may deserve to your kindly attention. Then we can tell each other our impressions and opinions. I hope on your response

              Regards