• [deleted]

Does universe has any dimension or it is dimension-less?

In the universe we can observe only distances not dimensions. Thee dimensional Euclid space, four dimensional Riemann space and multidimensional geometrical spaces are merely mathematical models and not physical realities.

As in the universe we can observe only distances we can only observe motion. Time as a clock run and different geometries are man inventions with which he describes motion i.e material change in the universe. Universe itself is dimension-less and time-less. Space-time is a math model only and has no correspondence in physical universe.

A see more adequate picture of the universe in three-dimensional objects of different sizes from Planck size above. This picture is more elegant and less complicated as a picture of n-dimensional physical objects coupled together as a Russian Matjuskas.

Whatever model we take, we have to be aware it is only a picture. Conscious observer is aware of that.

yours amrit

  • [deleted]

PS

Regarding the title here, mathematic is not an illusion. Mathematic is a projection of consciousness into human mind. Logic is based on neuronal dynamics that corresponds fundamental physical properties and dynamics of the universe. Logic and mathematic are realizations - manifestations of consciousness in the rational part of human mind.

"Illusion" is thinking that mathematical objects as space-time, gravitational waves, hypothetical particle "chronos" and some others are physical realities. "Illusion" is created by not clearly distinguishing between "scientific picture" and universe itself.

  • [deleted]

Topos theory or topoi describes sets of sheaves which have some categorical equivalence by functors. So what Isham and Doring are setting up is a system where one observer will detect things under one algebraic variety, while in general observations can occur under a whole set of such varieties. A formalism of quantum gravity may well have this sort of feature. My general comment is that this tends to appeal to abstractions as a way of doing physics. What is likely to change how we think about physics is some physical principle, or some new manner of thinking where obstructions to the quantization of gravity are removed. The formalism which emerges from this could then involve this sort of category theory.

Cheers LC

  • [deleted]

The previous posting "topos or not topos",I recall reading and trying to get around the complex notions and ideas/ what I found is that the macro system can be thought as being "True" whilst the quantum system being thought of as "False". The bigger the system the more real or relative it becomes, and conversely the more micro a system becomes, the more trouble one has in retaining relative properties such as position ie.

For all intensive purpose, the undetectableness of a system is related to it's "falseness"? one can be mathematical certain of existing within relative 4-D space-time, but one cannot transpose the mathematics below quantum scales with exact certainties.

Ultimately one can coclude this:What is True on large scales, may not be proveable "True" on small scales, and what is "False" on large scales may not be proveable on small scales?

Due the exactness of relativity, the opposing systems such as string theory may, by its very nature be only identified by its "falseness"?..if stringtheory was "true" then relativity must be false..at least by the insights of topos theory, as I understand it that is !

best p.v

  • [deleted]

Stringtheory is a beautiful theory, because of it's inability to be mathematically proven ?

It sounds almost as if these words are ringing out from a distant past philosophy, maybe one of Jung?

very interesting idea's

p.v

    • [deleted]

    I have a tangential interest in this. A quantum error correction code exists on the 24 n dimensional spacetime, where n = 2 on the light cone gauge of the n = 3 Jordan exceptional algebra. The 24 -dimensions describes a Leech lattice system, and the additional n dimensions are a projective variety. This projective variety defines another covering quantum code called a Goppa code. This has topoi mathematics, since projective varieties define sheaves, and the coding structure is a categorical system on sheaves --- similar to the Grothendieck system or etale topos.

    However, before blasting away with that I am trying to establish a physical reasoning for this. In some ways this is harder than the mathematics. It centers around the obstruction to the existence of a continuous time operator in quantum mechanics.

    In what I am proposing string theory does play a role. The 26 dimensions above pertain to the 26-dimensional bosonic string. I don't think the problem with string theory is mathematically proving things. The mathematics can be worked out. The problem is really with direct empirical observations. Topos theory, if that is called to really bear on physics problems, will indicate how certain theoretical observations (what an observer detects) varies in ways which appear radically different, but which ultimately have some categorical equivalency.

    • [deleted]

    Hermann Weyl once commented:

    'While topology has succeeded fairly well in mastering continuity, we do not yet understand the inner meaning of the restriction to differentiable manifolds. Perhaps one day physics will be able to discard it. '

    We are now ready to do that. In fact it has been done and the results are so amazing that most theoretical physicists cannot even recognize or understand the successful completion of Einstein's 3-part relativity project: [1] Special Relativity (relativity of S-T for inertial frames); [2] General Relativity (relativity for inertial accelerated frames); [3] discrete conformal relativity (discrete relativity of scale).

    Welcome to the 21st century,

    RLO

    • [deleted]

    Lawrence@:A quantum error correction code exists on the 24 n dimensional spacetime, where n = 2 on the light cone gauge of the n = 3 Jordan exceptional algebra. The 24 -dimensions describes a Leech lattice system, and the additional n dimensions are a projective variety. This projective variety defines another covering quantum code called a Goppa code. This has topoi mathematics, since projective varieties define sheaves, and the coding structure is a categorical system on sheaves --- similar to the Grothendieck system or etale topos.

    Lawrence@: In what I am proposing string theory does play a role. The 26 dimensions above pertain to the 26-dimensional bosonic string. I don't think the problem with string theory is mathematically proving things. The mathematics can be worked out. The problem is really with direct empirical observations. Topos theory, if that is called to really bear on physics problems, will indicate how certain theoretical observations (what an observer detects) varies in ways which appear radically different, but which ultimately have some categorical equivalency.

    Lawrence, I am also very interested in the 26 bosonic string theory. According to Michio Kaku there are two kinds of fibrations in heterotic string theory, one fibrating in the 26-dimensional spacetime the other in 10-dimensional spacetime. 26 - 10 = 16. The symmetry group of this 16 dimensional space is the group E(8) x E(8).

    My octonionic model of gravity is a 16 dimensional model. It is a closed system of spacetime and includes mass and energy, it encompases general relativity. Probably the two opposite octonions involved already possess supersymmetry. The simple quadratic structure of the octonionic model probably doesn't allow spin 2 particles. In that case gravitons can't exist. The 16 dimensions form a base manifold. The planck constant is part of it. The other dimensions must be completely separated from this base manifold, they are the internal dimensions forming a fibre bundle above the base manifold. They can have their own planck constants (which is suggested by the fine structure constant), but if they have then this will be the second reason that they can't be part of spacetime. The 16 dimensional octonionic model of gravity only has three spatial dimensions. The problem with 10 dimensional stringtheory is that they treat 9 dimensions as ordinary spatial dimensions. I think that is terribly wrong. I suggested that for instance in Kaluza-Klein theory the fifth dimension can be electromagnetic flux. In that case gravity has no influence on it and the electron can savely put into the theory. Or in steat of em-flux we can take em-length (product of em-length and velocity gives em-flux).

    The interesting question is how those internal dimensions are related to the two octonions underlying the 16 dimensional base manifold. And how many dimensions are the internal dimensions composed of? are there more then 10 dimensions? Are they also hypercomplex numbers? What is the relation between a base manifold and the fibre bundle over it? What kind of mathematical structure would this be? It must be a very basal mathematical entity that we haven't discovered yet.

    Peter van Gaalen

    • [deleted]

    There once was a man named Kaku,

    Who imagined himself a guru.

    While hunting hidden worlds, alas,

    He stuck his head far up his ass,

    And declared: "That world is made of poo!"

    Gratis,

    RLO

    www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    • [deleted]

    The relationship between the 26 and 10-11 dimensional cases is subtle. The bosonic string has Virasoro cancellation of central anomaly for D = 26, and for supersymmetric theory it is 11 dimensional. The 11 dimensional case involves M^4xS^7, where the S^7, or its related S^6 under the light cone gauge, contains the Calabi-Yau data under compactification. The 7-sphere here plays a central role in this matter, for it defines a holonomy which is crucial in defining a cubic action. I will say that this is holographic, and there are ways of working a matrix theory this way. The best approach is the Jordan exceptional algebra. This is the algebra of the octonions, which extends the E_8 octonions into a triality. The J^2(O) = R () V [() = oplus] is of the form

    [math]

    J^2(O) = \left(\matrix{z_0 & {\cal O}\cr

    {\bar{\cal O}} & z_1}\right)

    [/math]

    which is extended to the J^3(O) matrix algebra. The triality in J^3(O) includes an E_8 matrix of vectors and two spinor matrices. These do correspond to a Feynman diagram where a vector (boson) decays into a spinor and its conjugate. The Feynman diagram is a three-way spoke, with V ~ O going in and O' and O" going out. The J^3(O) is R () J^2(O) () θ () bar-θ,

    [math]

    J^3(O) = \left(\matrix{z_1 & {\cal O}_0 & {\bar{\cal O}}_2\cr

    {\bar{\cal O}}_0 & z_2 & {\cal O}_1\cr

    {\cal O}_2 & {\bar{\cal O}}_1 & z_0}\right)

    [/math]

    for the spinorial (fermionic fields) octonions in O and O". The vector term given by the ocotinion O, V ~ J^2(O) decays into V --> ψ bar-ψ. This is a manifestation of the automorphism of G_2, and is an elementary Feynman diagram for a supersymmetric gauge interaction. So the two spinorial octonions are the O^2 or two E_8's which you refer to.

    The space here is 27 dimensional. The O's are each 8-dimensional, which gives a general span of 3x8 3 = 27 dimensional. The above triality condition, along with some anomaly cancellations of vertex algebras, defines a space of reduced dimension of 8 3 = 11 dimensional. On the light cone frame (infinite momentum frame) the space in 27 dimensions is reduced to 26 dimensions and the 11 dimensional space to 10. These are the corresponding bosonic string Lorentizian spacetime and the supersymmetric space of supergravity respectively. The diagonal elements of this matrix define a Chern-Simons lagrangian of scalar terms for x_i --> p_i A_i (the cubic nature of this is apparent) and a general Lagrangian defined as the determinant of J^3(O) under all triality transformations defines a cubic action. This then determines an equivalency between a field theory term and a dual boundary field. This field ~ boundary of dual field is a cornerstone of AdS.CFT. The AdS/CFT can be found for the case where two scalars in J^3(O) define timelike directions.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    Oops~ I copied part of the post in the name box! Yikes, that looks crazy!

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    All matter and constituent particles are continuously changing position and thus form within space, and all particles are in continuous motion, all things are in a continuous state of becoming. I have described the necessary energy for universal motion and development of structure from the complexity of the medium as the Universal potential energy difference between the two states of existence, that is promotional energy. This might also be worded as there is broken symmetry causing progression from one state to the next in the sequence. Or there is a change in energy level from one state to the next, giving a sequence of change.It is all the same.

    The particular state of being of the matter or particle is not being influenced only by forces and co-present matter within 3D space but by the 4th dimensional progression itself. The particular state of the matter observed will depend "when" on its journey of becoming or to be more precise at which particular state of becoming the measurement or observation is made. Time is irrelevant to the actual change itself, as it is just a regular measurement used within everyday experience and scientific measurement, that occurs within 3D space and is substituted for the continuous spatial change.

    The 4th dimensional spatio-energetic change enables the modelling of the becoming rather than that which -is- within 3D space.Without the suggestion that matter is smeared or duplicated throughout time. It does not give rise to the grandfather paradox or need for a multiverse. The objects potentially observed states of being can be imagined existing sequentially as spatial variations along the 4th dimension not as multiple possibilities occupying the same 3D space. Though the imagined other possibilities have no existence outside of the imagination when the particular state at the moment of observation is determined. They were only potential candidates for the prize of being in existence at the moment of observation.

    This can be modelled using quaternion mathematics, where the scalar dimension is not time but spatio-energetic. 3 spatial dimensions are not enough. Orientation of that dimension's axis being from whole exterior to interior centre of gravity of matter or singularity of particle.It is scalar and so has no single orientation from within 3D space. Continuous change in position of matter along the scalar dimension give the rotations observed in 3D space, gravity, the "arrow of time" and increasing complexity of structure. So the object and constituent particles are not smeared through and changing in time but are rotating and developing within space only. This kind of modelling is already widely used in computing and guidance systems.It is found superior for such purposes, avoiding gimbal lock.

    I do not know whether the new mathematics proposed in the article is actually required. Revitalisation of the old quaternion mathematics may suffice. Which already appears to be well under way.

    If it is considered necessary to say how that loss of potential energy (necessary for gravity, creation and arrow of time) is balanced, it can be hypothesised that balancing the aforeward flow of matter and particles along the 4th dimension there is aftward flow of the medium of space (Call it whatever you will.) If this is particulate material it might be observed as antimatter. These could be conceptualised as particles moving backwards in time though this would only be a philosophical perspective on the aftward 4th dimensional movement within space. The flow of matter in its process of becoming being balanced by the counter flow of the medium. As every change in spatial position requires further change in spatial position of particle, matter or medium and every energy change gives rise to a further energy change, these being two aspects of the same phenomenon. Conservation of energy being conservation of spatial change. The Megauniverse can thus be hypothesised to be in a state of perpetual motion and ultimately balanced creation and self destruction. Where rather than fading away to nothing small perturbations within the medium of space at the exterior of the hypersphere can lead, via the processes of chaos and complexity theory, to creation of new powerful forces, structures and organisation.

    • [deleted]

    I would like a more radical return to really sound mathematics instead of mysticism. Isn't set theory based topology unable to cut the real line into two symmetrical parts?

    Let me comment on this:

    "Isham and colleagues have identified a topos in which quantum theory appears to make logical sense--as long as you embrace a new type of logic, in which "true" and "false" are no longer your only options. There are now multiple shades in between."

    Cantor's naive set theory deliberately ignored so called 4th logical option. Isn't it justified to ask for a honest while less exciting solution instead?

    "In a sense, using a topos is changing the whole of mathematics," says Döring.

    How can the application of a branch of a mathematics that is based on a - as I found out illfounded - theory change the whole of mathematics to the better?

    Incidentally to me, the words "in some sense" tend to hide a vague speculation.

    Eckard Blumschein

    • [deleted]

    I said "I do not know whether the new mathematics proposed in the article is actually required." That was perhaps a little too diplomatic to convey my genuine opinion.

    I am sure that this mathematics is not necessary to explain the physics that is observed. Quaternion mathematics will do the job nicely, in my opinion. The quaternion mathematical approach has to be the way forward as it is the logical way to model the universe, that answers the foundational questions and overcomes the paradoxes. Doug Sweetster seems to be doing some good work here.

    Doug Sweetster's maths

    Not being a mathematician I would not like to analyse or criticize his work. It would only serve to show my own limited ability. Though I would be interested in the opinions of other mathematicians. Just to get a measure of how well he is doing. I am really optimistic about this approach. If there are "issues" that is still OK.

    As Feyman said at the start of his Noble prize lecture. "We have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible, to cover all the tracks, to not worry about the blind alleys or to describe how you had the wrong idea first, and so on. So there isn't any place to publish, in a dignified manner, what you actually did in order to get to do the work, although, there has been in these days, some interest in this kind of thing."

    I think the "in a dignified manner" is important as it is about reputation. I do not know who said it first (it may have been Lord Snowdon or Lord Lichfield) but there is a saying that "the secret of being a good photographer is never to show people your bad photographs" or words to that effect. I would dare to say that all good scientists and good photographers also have a lot of work that they are not proud of because they do not attain the fully formed idea or perfect work from the outset every time.

    With regard to the topos mathematics. I do not think it is without any value just because it is unnecessary within physics. I categorise it as interesting, unknown potential, not immediately useful.

    • [deleted]

    By me.

    • [deleted]

    The process of cutting a line is the Dedekind cut.

    Topos theory does not involve Cantor's transfinite numbers. Topos theory does invoke the Zariski topology, or systems of projective and algebraic varieties which are in general non-Hausdorff. The only connection with set theory is with foundational issues that are purely mathematical. Most people working on this or related issues of sheaf theory in algebraic geometry are not focused particularly on set theoretic underpinnings.

    Sweetser's GEM theory!? I have encountered this guy on other blog or forum sites. First off, if you want to study quaternions, then study Clifford algebras. My comment on Sweetser's stuff is that he is, as I recall, building up a theory of gravity based on electromagnetism, or the quaternionic formulism of EM going back to Maxwell. He has been plugging on this for years, and the whole thing keeps snowballing into an endless tangle and nest of complicated formulae. I and others would find difficulties with his ideas and he would keep patching it up, and the whole thing kept evolving into this increasingly ponderous web of complexity. I don't think his theory beyond the second order in post-Newtonian gravity can be correct.

    Cheers LC

    • [deleted]

    I would just like to explain how the ideas I have posted here tie in with my previous posts on subjective reality.

    I said "The objects potentially observed states of being can be imagined existing sequentially as spatial variations along the 4th dimension not as multiple possibilities occupying the same 3D space. Though the imagined other possibilities have no existence outside of the imagination when the particular state at the moment of observation is determined. They were only potential candidates for the prize of being in existence at the moment of observation."

    Rather than moment of observation I should have said at that particular spatial configuration where the observer or apparatus detected the information concerning the particle. That spatial configuration and condition of particle is just one in a sequence passed through. The information gathered about the particle is extracted from objective reality and is formed into a subjective reality. It is wrongly assumed that that information gathered on the particle is in some way more real than the other possibilities, that might have been detected if the moment (spatial configuration) of detection had been different. Which is to say it was undertaken when there was a different spatial configuration and condition of particle. The different possibilities having had their real existence along the 4th spatial dimension as the particle took its particular path through quaternion space. The particle if undisturbed would also not remain in the condition that it would have been detected in, if that detection was carried out.

    Subjective reality freezes the condition of the particle to identify a single reality within 3D space rather than giving it an extra degree of spatio-energetic freedom in which to exist. It does not have to be this or that it can be both but not within the same moment or exact same spatial configuration. It is an elusive dynamic entity, never ceasing in its change of quaternion spatial position. Its identity formed from the sequence, that is the spatio-energetic change, rather than being fixed in a singular identifiable identity within 3D space that is unchanging.

    • [deleted]

    The relevance of my previous post to the article is that, in my opinion, it should not take a -complete- change in the way mathematics is done to explain scientific observations. There has already been considerable evidence that the universe can be described using mathematic, giving good correspondence. Given a workable interpretation of what is being observed, intelligent and careful development and application of currently known mathematical technique should suffice.

    Doug Sweetser did say that, (according to his calculations) gravity could be regarded as a potential or a metric. That does correspond with what I have been saying about how gravity can be understood. Though, not being a mathematician, I can not realistically give a well considered opinion on how well the mathematics was performed. I am grateful for Lawrences's opinion but would also like to hear from other mathematicians regarding Doug Sweetster's work