• [deleted]

Elliot,

Thanks for taking the time to read "the monster" and thank you for posting some of the finer points of my arguement. It seems that what we have in common is our recognition that the general direction mainstream physics has been going in has not been very productive lately. Years ago, I became so disgusted with physicists trying to pile fantasy on top of fiction and sell it as credible - I walked away for awhile.

I became reinvigorated when Woit's book, and to a much greater extent, Smolin's Trouble w/Physics book came out. I finally saw some people making an honest effort to acknowledge the insanity that has been brewing for the past 20 years or so and I became interested again. The sad and ironic thing is that sticking to the facts and responsibly hypothesizing about missing or incomplete pieces of the cosmological puzzle is waaaaaay more interesting than the nonsense that many mainstreamers are engaging in. They are arguing over ultra-fine details in attempt to better describe fictitious theories. I liken it to a mathematician arguing over whether a number is 0.0328814 or 0.0328815 on a calculation that, at best only has 3 legitimate significant figures.

You and I - dissatisfied with present attempts to explain "what is" have each tried to make a contribution by proposing new theories. From where I sit, the first half of my theory is scientifically sound. Which is that Einstein's complete explanation for why time dilates is impossible. After one realizes that upon review of the facts, It is impossible not to see that that discovery would drastically impact how we view the nature of "time" in the universe. The second part of my theory seems like a next logical step but as you can see, I have no specific interactions among particles, forces and fields that serve as definitive mechanisms which explain both the nature of time and the relative nature of time. I am pretty sure I'm going down the right road - I'm just not sure what house # I'm looking for. I am working on that as we type and hope to have more on that soon.

As for MDT: It sounds intriguing. It's one of those theories that, if you are correct - It would fill in a lot of missing pieces of the puzzle at once. If there is something that would allow me to endorse this as a likely explanation to our cosmological mysteries that haunt us - I would support you 100%. Who knows - that might happen in a week or in a year. But if there is something that makes MDT impossible then I will have to make you aware of that too. It takes me longer to process information because I assume and accept nothing without evidence. That's not how many physicists treat string theory and relativity but I can't help that. Everyone has got their own way of drawing conclusions and I prefer to keep my methods as scientific as possible - even if it means that many "scientists" disagree with me. Having said that - I don't even know what a 4th dimension is? Nor do I know what it means for it to expand exactly. I can see that your version of a 4th dimension is different than what most physicists think of it as. Is your theory self-consistent? If it is then at least you have got Einstein beat! If it is and does not conflict with any experimental evidence - does that alone prove MDT? Could there be alternative theories that may explain all of our unknowns without the need for a 4th expanding dimension? If MDT is correct - then it will be self-consistent and agree with some sort of experimental evidence that makes it uniquely correct while competing theories break down. I have no idea what it will take to determine the fate of MDT one way or the other. I will spend some time on it this week (and the supplemental attachments) and see if I can come up with something.

By the way - I did try to past in the link on that twin paradox paper and didn't come up with anything and searched the names. Is there another way to link it?

Oh, and - the next time you are on the treadmill, ask a stationary observer if they consider you in motion!

  • [deleted]

Hello Chris!

Yes--MDT agrees with all experimental results in quantum mechanics and relativity, while providing a common physical model for phenomena in both realms.

From MDT's simple postulate and equation dx4/dt=ic, all of relativity's maths may be derived, and too, MDT shows there is a frame of absolute rest (the three spatial dimensions) and absolute motion (the fourth expanding dimension. A benefit of MDT is the natural explanation of the GPS satellite's clocks' time dilation--the time on the satellite's clock runs slower by 7000 ns than the earth's clock each and every day. This is because the earth's clock exists closer to the frame of rest defined by the three stationary spatial dimensions. (More on this later in the week!)

Here is another simple proof of MDT's 4th expanding dimension:

a) In order to observe the nature of the fourth dimension, let us examine mass that exists entirely in the fourth dimension. Such a mass would be the photon, which has zero rest mass. A photon's mass exists entirely in the fourth dimension. Now, in its simplest case a photon is described by a nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c through the three spatial dimensions, while remaining stationary in the fourth dimension. Ergo the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions. QED: "Quod Erat Demonstrandum"

The expansion of the fourth dimension naturally distributes locality and fathers time.

Moving Dimensions Theory's simple postulate, physical model, and equation account for both "relativity's elementary foundations," which Einstein stated we yet needed, and Schrödinger's "characteristic trait" of quantum mechanics--entanglement, while also providing a *physical* model for entropy and time and all its arrows, while also showing why the GPS satellite's clocks' time is dilated while the earth-bound clocks isn't (more on this later in the week--I need to absorb all the references you cited!).

Thanks again, Chris, for highlighting the discrepancies in various prominent physicists' treatment of the twin paradox. Surely it is more important to resolve this than spend foundation monies devising and maintaining crackpot indexes to protect the antitheorists' vacationing far off in multiverses, parallel universes, Aspen, Hawaii, and "giant voids" which represent the "unmistakable imprint of a universe just beyond our own."

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

  • [deleted]

P.S. The link to the paper worked for me!

Twin Paradox Experiment of Transverse Doppler Shift

using Global Positioning System Satellites

Masanori Sato

Honda Electronics Co., Ltd.,

20 Oyamazuka, Oiwa-cho, Toyohashi, Aichi 441-3193, Japan

E-mail: msato@honda-el.co.jp

http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/vc/physics/papers/0502/0502007v2.pdf

If you want me to email it to you, shoot me an email at drelliot@gmail.com .

  • [deleted]

Hello Chris,

Regarding the fourth dimension, it is simply that which is orthogonal to all three spatial dimensions.

Just as the third dimension is orthogonal to the first two dimensions in the x=x1, y=x2, z=x3 coordinate system, the fourth dimension is orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions.

Each new dimension must be orthogonal to all previous dimensions, in order for it to be a dimension.

Einstein and Minkowski wrote x1=x, x2=y, x3=z, x4=ict.

Well look! The x4 is very differnt from x1, x3, and x3! Not only is it orthogonal to the three spatial dimensions, but as t progresses it progresses! None of the other dimensions depend on t! dx4/dt=ic.

No wonder two interacting photons can remain entangled! They are stationary in the fourth dimension whose expansion defines a nonlocality! No wonder a photon, which moves at the vecloity of light, does not move in the fourth dimension, as the ofurth dimension is moving right with it. :) Photons are but matter surfing the fourth expanding dimension.

Talk soon!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

  • [deleted]

Hi Dr E.,

I'm not a physicist, but I am recently learning special relativity out of curiosity. I came across this forum and read your very interesting theory.

I have some relatively simplistic questions to help understand the theory. You say both that x4 expands and that x4 moves. These don't seem to be the same thing to me. Is x4 an axis, but a apparently a bounded one?

For example, if X4 just *expands* at any one "time" say t=10, it could represent a set of points from 0 to say 10ci (ict where t=10). Then at a later "time" t-11, it could represent points from 0 to 11ci (t=11). Or if it just *moves* then maybe just one point exists 10ci when t=10 (or perhaps a small bounded interval like 10ci + planck-time, if I understood some of the more advanced parts of your theory). Only that point or interval would exist along the x4 axis and physically in the universe. At a later time, t=11, x4=11ci. And then only that point or interval exists in the universe (and all matter would have to have that value for X4 at that moment). Which one (if any) of these do you mean?

  • [deleted]

Hello Andy,

Here is the simplest way to explain MDT's dx4/dt=ic.

Relativity tells us: A photon never ages. A photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum Mechanics tells us: A photon is a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c.

Hence to remain in one place in the fourth dimension means to also expand as a probabilistic wavefront at c. Ergo the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, manifesting itself as a spherically-symmetric, nonlocal wavefront.

This agrees perfectly with both relativity and quantum mechanics, and it is the first theory to provide a *physical* model for both the elementary foundations of Einstein's relativity and Schrodenger's charactertistic trait of quantum mechanics--entanglement, while also weaving change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity.

People asked similar questions early on here:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/238

And here are some figures which may help!

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/MDT_PERVADES_NATUREIMAGINARY_NUMBERS_IMPLY_PERPENDICULARITY.pdf

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

  • [deleted]

Hi Dr. E,

Thanks for the links. I looked at /MDT_PERVADES_NATUREIMAGINARY_NUMBERS_IMPLY_PERPENDICULARITY.pdf

and it is a bit complex. So I tried to simplify the first figure to 2 dimensions, X1 and X4. I am attaching it. I think I get the idea. In my figure, the circumference of the circle is the 4th dimension with radius ict. Only the circumference really exists at any one moment, and it has a thickness related to the Planck time. If a photon leaves the origin at T=0, it will have a probability of being anywhere on the circumference of the circle, but classically you can depict it where I put the small yellow circle, since it has moved entirely in X1, it did not move at all in X4. However, a resting particle x, moves completely in X4 and not X1. Are my diagram and interpretations correct? If so, I will try to use it think some more about MDT.

AndyAttachment #1: photons2.pdf

  • [deleted]

Thanks Andy,

Thanks for the figure!

Yes--relativity tells us that a photon remains stationary in the fourth expanding dimension, and yes--quantum mechanics tells us that a photon can be found anywhere upon a nonlocal, spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c. I yet prefer my diagrams as it seems you suddenly create a particle at t=2 out of nothing and place it on the imaginary axis. This is more confusing and misleading than my simple diagrams:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/ MDT_PERVADES_NATUREIMAGINARY_NUMBERS_IMPLY_PERPENDICULARITY.pdf

A stationary particle in the three spatial dimensions does not move through the fourth dimension so much as the fourth dimension moves/exapnds through it. We interpret this as time flowing for the stationary particle/system, as the transistions in energy that demarcate time are all carried upon the expansion of the fourth dimension.

To illustrate this, consider a light clock in which a photon bounces back and forth between two mirrors separated by one meter. If the light clock is at rest in the three spatial dimensions, it will regsiter 3x10^8 tics/bounces per second. If the light clock starts moving close to the speed of light, it will take far longer from the standpoint of the orginal rest frame, for the photon to reach the receding mirror. Hence it will be seen to tick slower by the stationary light clock from the stationary lab frame. But in its own frame, it will not notice the change, as the velocity of light determines the tic rate, and in its own frame the velocity of light will yet be c as time slows, as time is measured based on how long it takes for the photon to reach the mirror.

The light clock in the context of MDT illustrates the tautological relationship between time and the velocity of light, which Einstein was the first to recognize with, "My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light] velocity." -Einstein

Please see:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/

2_MDT_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

"Consider a light clock represented by separated by one meter. A photon bounces back and fourth between the mirrors. A photon travels at 3.0 x 108 m/s, so each time a photon hits a mirror, .333 x 10-8 s have elapsed. Suppose we want to measure the velocity of light with this light clock. We set up an experimental apparatus as pictured below, with a photon source and a photon detector separated by one meter. This tautological definition of time and the velocity of light, which rests upon MDT's fundamental invariant of dx4/dt=ic, is what ensures that c is constant. MDT's invariance underlies Einstein's observation, "My solution was really for the very concept of time, that is, that time is not absolutely defined but there is an inseparable connection between time and the signal [light] velocity."Attachment #1: 2_2_MDT_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdfAttachment #2: 4_MDT_PERVADES_NATUREIMAGINARY_NUMBERS_IMPLY_PERPENDICULARITY.pdf

  • [deleted]

I'm attaching a revised version of the figure I made that separates the particle at rest from the photon. Please feel free to use it in any way you like.

Your figure conveys the spherical nature (or is some kind of 4D sphere) of the expanding 4th dimension. Mine was made to help me understand your idea. Thinking of the circumference of a circle or the surface of a sphere as state of the 4th dimension is a very interesting idea.

I also made my figure in 2Ds so I could compare it more easily to Minkowski diagrams, and try to understand the relationship between Einstein's time and your time.

Before I can appreciate the way your idea fits in with physics such as gravitation, I first have to understand the basic idea.Attachment #1: photons3.pdf

  • [deleted]

Thanks Andy,

Try keeping the particle at rest at the orgin. The fourth dimension is expanding way from it while it stays in one place!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

  • [deleted]

Dr. E said "Ergo the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions," I do not think that the expanding dimension idea is a necessary conclusion nor the only possible explanation. (I have explained relevant aspects of my own model elsewhere on this site and therefore do not feel it appropriate to repeat it yet again here.)

I can see why the expanding dimension may seem a good solution if one is trying to fit the new model to expansion of the universe and theory of entropy.These 2 assumptions are not correct, in my opinion.Therefore although the model appears to answer many fundamental questions and is neat,it is still not the best solution,in my opinion.

  • [deleted]

Dear Dr. E,

I agree that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

In Section 6.2 of my book (free partial preview available at http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=1296633), I introduced my version of Variable Coupling Theory.

Combining Variable Coupling Theory with your Expansion concepts may lead to two interesting consequences: 1) Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis was valid in the early Universe, but has since decoupled (becuase time is expanding faster than space), and 2) this may also explain the apparent deceleration and successive acceleratiion of cosmological expansion normally attributed to Dark Energy.

Dear Georgina,

I have read some of your blogs regarding Prime Quaternion Theory. I am not opposed to your theory because I think it could be a component of my 12-dimensional Octonion-Quaternion E12 TOE. Your concepts regarding time echo many of Stephen Hawking's ideas in his book "A Brief History of Time". Certainly, we have several types of time, with at least the following examples: 1) that measured by an atomic clock, 2) that measured by entropic change, and 3) that measured by human experiences. Are these truly three different dimensions? Or are they simply the same dimension, but related via linear, non-linear, or quantum relations? Personally, IF there was another time dimension, I would expect it to involve complex numbers (imaginary time). Also, a true Quaternion is four dimensional, and is not large enough to contain extra time dimensions - if you have manipulated equations to say something different, then those equations defy common sense.

Have Fun!

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

  • [deleted]

Thanks Dr. Ray!

I will check out the book. Is MDT incorporated into it?

I prefer to state that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, instead of time expanding relative to the spatial dimensions. This comes directly from Minkowski & Einstein's 1912 Manuscript on Relativity where he writes x4=ict, implying:

dx4/dt=ic

Time is not the fourth dimension but rather a parameter (oft measured by the ticking seconds on our watches) that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. As our ticking watches rely on the propagation of photons which surf the fourth expanding dimension, time inherits properties of the fourth dimension in relativity, but again, time is not the fourth dimension.

Hello Georgina!

You write, "I do not think that the expanding dimension idea is a necessary conclusion nor the only possible explanation. (I have explained relevant aspects of my own model elsewhere on this site and therefore do not feel it appropriate to repeat it yet again here.)"

Please do share your physical model and physical theory that accounts for both Eisntein's "elementary foundations of relativity" which he stated we yet needed and Shrodenger's "characteristic trait" of quantum mechanics--nonlocality and entanglement. Or at least please provide a link or two. MDT also provides a physical model for time and all its arrows, entropy, all the dualities, quantum nonlocality, Huygens' Principle and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Please do share your theory or link to it. Thanks!

I stand by my logic and can find no more succinct way, nor complete way, to account for the appearance of x4=ict in Einstein's manuscript, the constancy of the velocity of light, entropy, time and all its arrows, quantum nonlocality, and quantum entanglement than MDT.

Here is the simplest way to explain MDT's dx4/dt=ic:

Relativity tells us: A photon never ages. A photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum Mechanics tells us: A photon is a spherically-symmetric probabilistic wavefront expanding at c.

Hence to remain in one place in the fourth dimension means to also expand as a probabilistic wavefront at c. Ergo the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, manifesting itself as a spherically-symmetric, nonlocal wavefront.

This agrees perfectly with both relativity and quantum mechanics, and it is the first theory to provide a *physical* model for both the elementary foundations of Einstein's relativity and Schrodenger's charactertistic trait of quantum mechanics--entanglement, while also weaving change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime for the first time in the history of relativity.

twitter proofs of moving dimensions theory!

SR: photon is stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding @ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic

  • [deleted]

Dear Dr. E,

Thanks for the explanation. I have been isolated from the main Physics community, and was unaware of MDT until this blog started three weeks ago. It is an interesting concept. Does 4 spatial dimensions plus the "ticking time" effect of the fourth dimension expanding faster than the other three imply an equivalent effect as Kaluza's fifth dimension?

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

  • [deleted]

Hello Dr. Cosmic Ray,

Hello! Yes--Kaluza's fifth diemnsion! I wrote something on that and will add below, but first:

What "main Physics community" have you been isolated from? The one that embraces and exalts parallel universes, tiny, little loops and virbating strings, baby black hole creation and tests of string theory and higher dimensions in the LHC, time machines, the anthropic principle, multiverses, untesable antitheories, violations of Einstein's relativity, bouncing universes, nonconstant constants, mutable laws of physics, a new physics which needs no longer be tested, frozen time, block universes, time's unreality, and giant voids providing "unmistakable evidence" and imprints of universes just beyond the edge of our own? Is this the main physics community of which you speak, which pays non-phds to call Ph.D. physicists crackpots (based on the antitheorist's state-funded crackpot indexes) so as to protect their antitheory regimes and magazine covers?

Haha! Some "main" physics community!

Peter Woit is following their party today:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=1777#comments

Is seems Joey Ramone will be playing later tonight!

Joey Ramone says:

April 2, 2009 at 10:29 am

If we can get Paul Davies' time machine working on time, the Ramones will be headlinig the big bash at the Origins Initiative!

We have a new song :

Rock-rock-rock-rock'n'roll cosmology center!

"Rock N Roll Cosmology Center"

Well I don't care about string theory

Rock, rock, rock'n'roll high school

'Cause that's not where I wanna be

Rock, rock, rock'n'roll high school

I just wanna have some multiverse kicks

I just wanna get some multiverse chicks

Rock, rock, rock, rock, rock'n'roll high school

Well the girls out there knock me out, you know

Rock, rock, rock'n'roll landscape

Cruisin' around in my time machine GTO

Rock, rock, rock'n'roll high school

I hate all predictions and old principles

Don't wanna be taught to be no fool

Rock, rock, rock, rock, rock'n'roll high school

Fun fun rock'n'roll cosmology center

Fun fun rock'n'roll cosmology center

Fun fun rock'n'roll cosmology center

Fun fun, oh baby

The album is called "A Cosmology Center in every Multiverse."

Hope to see you at the conference!

Towards the end of the video, the LHC is turned on and it

1) proves string theory

2) finds seven multiverses

3) locates 17 higher dimensions

4) proves the anthropic principle

5) creates baby black holes which become bouncing universes

6) explodes before any of this can be recorded

Joey

Joey Ramone says:

April 2, 2009 at 10:30 am

P.S. Here is the video for Rock'n'Roll Cosmology Center: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhRALq8IsL4

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

  • [deleted]

RE: MDT & Kaluza Klein Theory:

MDT & Kaluza Klein Theory

The illustrations of Kaluza Klein Theory immediately bring MDT's fourth expanding dimension to mind. Imagine if every point of the fourth dimension is continually expanding, underlying all manifestations of Huygens' Principle throughout all of nature, as well as Kaluza Klein's extra dimension. A frozen snapshot of the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT's universe would look something like this:

http://jac_leon.club.fr/gravitation/images/kaluza-klein.gif

Again and again throughout nature we see MDT's fundamental action---local points becoming nonlocal spheres (underlying Huygens' Principle, entanglement, nonlocality, entropy), wherein every point on the surface, while distributed evenly throughout the three spatial dimensions, are yet at the same singular point in the fourth expanding dimension. dx4/dt = ic.

Or like this:

http://www.vcharkarn.com/uploads/17/17494.gif

Again and again throughout nature we see MDT's fundamental action--local points becoming nonlocal spheres (underlying Huygens' Principle, entanglement, nonlocality, entropy), wherein every point on the surface, while distributed evenly throughout the three spatial dimensions, are yet at the same singular point in the fourth expanding dimension. Dx4/dt = ic.

Wikipedia reports: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory

"In physics, Kaluza-Klein theory (or KK theory, for short) is a model that seeks to unify the two fundamental forces of gravitation and electromagnetism. The theory was first published in 1921 and was discovered by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza who extended general relativity to a five-dimensional spacetime. The resulting equations can be separated out into further sets of equations, one of which is equivalent to Einstein field equations, another set equivalent to Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field and the final part an extra scalar field now termed the "radion"." --wikipedia

Kaluza-Klein theory posited that gravity and electromagnetism can be unified by adding a fifth dimension of compactified space, and MDT provides this compactified space. The novelty of MDT is that it proposes that this compactified space is not static, but that it is constantly appearing, as the fourth dimension expands. Thus MDT underlies all string theories. String Theory ignores Einstein's insight that space and time can move, warp, and bend. MDT acknowledges that dimensions can move, and that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Brian Greeene et al are always worrying about their calculations blowing up at small distances. Well, via the nonlocality of the fourth expanding dimenson, from where all wavelike behavior arises, all this is resolved.

Gravity, based on general relativity, freezes the fourth expanding dimension. Electromagnetism, based on the quantum mechanical properties of photons, treats the fourth expanding dimension as an entity in constant flux.

Below again is a figure depicting the compactified dimensions of Kaluza Klein--not that it is very similar to the earlier figures depicting MDT in terms of a dimension that is expanding in a spherically-symmetric manner.

http://jac_leon.club.fr/gravitation/images/kaluza-klein.gif

Again and again throughout nature we see MDT's fundamental action--local points becoming nonlocal spheres, wherein every point on the surface, while distributed evenly throughout the three spatial dimensions, are yet at the same singular point in the fourth expanding dimension. dx4/dt = ic.

Wikipedia reports on Kaluza Klein's limitations:

"As an approach to the unification of the forces, it is straightforward to apply the Kaluza-Klein theory in an attempt to unify gravity with the strong and electroweak forces by using the symmetry group of the Standard Model, SU(3) テ-- SU(2) テ-- U(1). However, an attempt to convert this interesting geometrical construction into a bona-fide model of reality founders on a number of issues, including the fact that the fermions must be introduced in an artificial way (in nonsupersymmetric models). A less problematic approach to the unification of the forces is taken by modern string theory and M-theory. Nonetheless, KK remains an important touchstone in theoretical physics and is often embedded in more sophisticated theories. It is studied in its own right as an object of geometric interest in K-theory.

Perhaps MDT, and the new, emergent picture of time, will provide a means for introducing fermions in a more natural manner. The exact nature and radius of the expanding fourth dimension could determine physical constants. Wikipedia reports:

Even in the absence of a completely satisfying theoretical physics framework, the idea of exploring extra, compactified, dimensions is of considerable interest in the experimental physics and astrophysics communities. A variety of predictions, with real experimental consequences, can be made (in the case of large extra dimensions/warped models). For example, on the simplest of principles, one might expect to have standing waves in the extra compactified dimension(s). If an extra dimension is of radius R, the energy of such a standing wave would be E = nhc / R with n an integer, h being Planck's constant and c the speed of light. This set of possible energy values is often called the Kaluza-Klein tower.

It is indeed interesting that M Theory and String Theory have 10 or 11 dimensions. MDT can account for these extra dimensions, starting with a three dimensional world. Every time a point expands in the fourth expanding dimension, it does so in an orthogonal manner, just as all radii of a sphere are orthogonal to its surface. Thus numerous dimensionalities can emerge; but always brought back to the reality and context of our three spatial dimensions.

Wikipeida reports: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_10_dimensions%3F#Number_of_dimensions

Number of dimensions

One intriguing feature of string theory is that it involves the prediction of extra dimensions. The number of dimensions is not fixed by any consistency criterion, but flat spacetime solutions do exist in the so-called "critical dimension." Cosmological solutions exist in a wider variety of dimensionalities, and these different dimensions--more precisely different values of the "effective central charge," a count of degrees of freedom which reduces to dimensionality in weakly curved regimes--are related by dynamical transitions.[15]

Nothing in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism or

Einstein's theory of relativity makes this kind of prediction; these theories require physicists to insert the number of dimensions "by hand," and this number is fixed and independent of potential energy. String theory allows one to relate the number of dimensions to scalar potential energy. Technically, this happens because a gauge anomaly exists for every separate number of predicted dimensions, and the gauge anomaly can be counteracted by including nontrivial potential energy into equations to solve motion. Furthermore, the absence of potential energy in the "critical dimension" explains why flat spacetime solutions are possible.

This can be better understood by noting that a photon included in a consistent theory (technically, a particle carrying a force related to an unbroken gauge symmetry) must be massless. The mass of the photon which is predicted by string theory depends on the energy of the string mode which represents the photon. This energy includes a contribution from the Casimir effect, namely from quantum fluctuations in the string. The size of this contribution depends on the number of dimensions since for a larger number of dimensions, there are more possible fluctuations in the string position. Therefore, the photon in flat spacetime will be massless--and the theory consistent--only for a particular number of dimensions.[16]

When the calculation is done, the critical dimensionality is not four as one may expect (three axes of space and one of time). Flat space string theories are 26-dimensional in the bosonic case, while superstring and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions for flat solutions. In bosonic string theories, the 26 dimensions come from the Polyakov equation.[17] Starting from any dimension greater than four, it is necessary to consider how these are --reduced to four dimensional space-time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_10_dimensions%3F#Number_of_dimensions

Picture a fourth expanding dimension. It would appear as a sphere in three stationary dimensions. Now if each point on the sphere is always expanding, just as each point on a spherically-symmetric wavefront is always expanding as a spherically symmetric wavefront, six new, linearly independent compactified dimensions will be introduced, as there are six degrees of freedom, resulting in a total of ten dimensions.

So it is that MDT easily accounts for the extra six dimensions, as the nature of the compactified, spherically-symmetric dimension is to be perpendicular to the point from which it emanated. That perpendicularity is implied by the that in MDT's fundamental equation:

Again, the expansion of a point into a sphere centered about that point results in a surface that as perpendicular to all radii. And that shows up in calculations whenever there is an inherent perpendicularity.

  • [deleted]

Dear Dr. E,

Hmm... A punk-rocker and a maverick Physicist. I can relate, but in Texas we wore cowboy boots when we slam-danced.

Currently, I am trying to fix Lisi's idea. I am convinced his E8 TOE is flawed. Third-generation fermions should not be in the same SO(16) as bosons. I have defined a new, non-Kac-Moody E12 to contain the TOE. Whereas I am starting with 12 dimensions and trying to collapse down to four, you are trying to fix the four, and thereby imply extra dimensions. I am years away from deriving any sort of Lagranian or dynamics that could reinforce MDT.

You and I have both seen the kissing spheres/ crystalline nature of Hyperspace (your prior blog and Section 7.2 of my book). This same feature ties into the properties of Exceptional Lie Algebras.

Good Luck in your endeavors! MDT is certainly interesting.

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

  • [deleted]

Yeah - I was going to read Lisi's paper. Then I saw that he wrote:

"I think this essay contest was very successful. Personally, as a restricted voter, I found the visible popular vote useful in pre-selecting the essays I read."

And I decided not to based on that frightening comment he made. I know - kind of shallow on my part but oh, well.

Now if Ray has a son - Ray Jr. - would we call him Secondary Cosmic Ray??

  • [deleted]

Dear Chris,

Actually, I am a Jr., but don't usually use it professionally. My HEP publications on Spires are under Ray B. Munroe. One of my NASA publications fell under "Jr.". If you want to call me Secondary Cosmic Ray, that would be OK. Somedays I'm not energetic enough to be a primary. LOL

Sincerely, Dr. Cosmic Ray

  • [deleted]

Hello Ray!

Yes--cowboy boots are a must.

I always wear them, and I watermark all my photography with a small dx4/dt=ic on the lefthand side. (please see the attached)

Did you know that James Clerk Maxwell invented color photography?

"

Maxwell's many interests included colour.

He analysed the phenomenon of colour perception, which led him to invent the trichromatic process.

Using red, green and blue filters, he produced the first colour photography - of a Scottish tartan ribbon. This process was the forerunner of today's modern colour photography"

--http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/html/maxwell_s_impact_.html

Please see some of my self-portraits attached--I had a remote under my jacket.

Shot on a Nikon D300. Out of respect, they are not in color as FQXI does not like us acknowledging foundational physics and physicists. The wisdom of foundational physicists gets in the way of mere mathemetical handwaving, multiverses, bouncing universes, timelessness, and decades-old, foundationless antitheories.

Even though you cannot hear it in the picture, this Ennino Morricone song was playing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwVqAnySjVY

As I read Maxwell's words:

"Mathematicians may flatter themselves that they possess new ideas which mere human language is as yet unable to express. Let them make the effort to express these ideas in appropriate words without the aid of symbols, and if they succeed they will not only lay us laymen under a lasting obligation, but, we venture to say, they will find themselves very much enlightened during the process, and will even be doubtful whether the ideas as expressed in symbols had ever quite found their way out of the equations into their minds." -James Clerk Maxwell

MDT: The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. dx4/dt=ic

Happy Friday!!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)Attachment #1: cowboyboots1.jpgAttachment #2: cowboyboots2.jpg