2020 Vision. A Model of Discretion in Space by Peter A Jackson

Dear Sir,

You are a real seeker of truth. Thus, we will reveal some of our theories, which we had not done till now.

First answer to your question regarding how direct observation could be different. Since you are fond of spectroscopy, we will give you an example from that branch. Look at the mechanism behind the emission spectra and absorption spectra. Both the emitter and the observer are in the same bigger frame of reference linking both and separated by the field. You will admit that the scattering in the medium causes the difference.

You say: "direct light hitting the eye is also scattered." In our theory, different forces co-exist. Thus, it is not scattering, but comparison like when we measure (compare) the length of a rod by a scale. The scale is not scattered by the rod. When you say "it can be apparent when we move", you are falling into the trap laid by Einstein. We have discussed it elaborately earlier by giving the example of Eddington.

You have not defined dark matter or dark energy precisely. The phenomena cited by you as proof is indirect and not direct. We can explain those phenomena differently. You also admit this possibility indirectly when you say: "The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!"

You say: "The references again show that curved space time exactly matches the effects of diffraction (gentle refraction delays and path curvature) via scattering in plasma." We have given our interpretation of "curved space-time", which is different from GR and it can also explain the effects of diffraction equally correctly.

You say: "The separate terms plasma-sphere and ionosphere are really misnomers". But you admit their difference when you say: "they are a graded whole, proton rich low down and electron rich higher up." The grading is not smooth, but shows the same distribution like the arrangement of protons and electrons in an atom. Since protons and electrons are placed differently in nucleus and orbits, the plasma-sphere and ionosphere have to be treated as different. We divide the electric and magnetic fields into four types each based on their gradient. That, along with the interaction with the Solar wind will explain the rest of your comments.

Now we will explain 'velocity of the field', which also will explain the constancy of 'c'. We have already explained that the basic nature of the field is equilibrium. The basic nature of forces is displacement. This gives rise to two different types of inertia: inertia of motion due to forces and inertia of restoration (elasticity) due to the field. This leads to both these inertia acting against a point of equilibrium to create locally confined structures. These structures, which are nothing but confined field is called "rayi". Both the inertias further act on "rayi". In such a scenario, the combined effect leads to repeated confinement around the point of equilibrium. The confined structures in which inertia of restoration dominates, is called particle (moorty). In the opposite case, it is called "amrita". This can be considered as your DFM.

The confinement could be strong, weak or loose, which leads to the formation of solids, fluids (including gases) and plasma. We call these 'dhruva", "dhartra" and "dharuna" respectively. Where the inertia of motion dominates, it appears as heat. Depending upon the nature of the particles, the propagation of heat is also classified into three categories. In solids, plasma and fluids, these are done by conduction, radiation and convection. We call these as "nirbhuja", "pratrirnna" and "ubhayamantarena" respectively. The third category gives rise to the electric field. Thus, electric behaves like a hot fluid.

Till now we were discussing about the confinement of "rayi" (where inertia of restoration dominates). In the opposite case, where inertia of motion dominates, "rayi" gives rise to three corresponding forces of cold confinement. These can explain the effects of the so-called "dark matter and dark energy". Magnetism belongs to this category. Thus, magnetism is a cold confining force. Since both these are different states of "rayi", electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin.

Till now we were discussing "rayi", which is a part of the primordial field dominated by inertia of restoration. The other part is dominated by inertia of motion, which we call "praana". The effect of this is felt by other bodies. Hence this gives rise to force. Depending on their effects on different bodies, these forces are classified into different groups discussed earlier. While strong, weak, electromagnetic and radioactive disintegration forces belong to this category associated with inertia of motion and heat, gravitational interaction is associated with inertia of restoration and cold. Thus, they cannot be united.

After a part of the primordial field is confined within "rayi", inertia of restoration in the field becomes weak and inertia of motion dominates. Thus, the field generates waves that expand rapidly in all directions. You call this big bang. The effects of "rayi" and "praana" in the primordial medium create the bow shock effect. This leads to reduced velocity of the wave, which ultimately stabilizes, cutting off a vast volume which we call universe. Since there is no reason to believe that it happens only in our locality, we believe in multiverses, which are similar universes and not as described by MWI.

After the bow shock comes to rest, the forces of inertia of motion and inertia of restoration cancel each other leading both to a superposition of states. We call this "maayaa". But the equilibrium is momentary, since the balance between "rayi" and "praana" within the confinement of "maayaa" has not been equated, the next moment inertia of restoration dominates and there is massive contraction. You call this inflation. We call this force "dhaaraa". This creates further interaction, which leads to structure formation. We call this "jaayaa". Outside the structures, the inertia of restoration still dominates. You call it the cosmic microwave back ground radiation. We call it "aapah". Thus, the universe can be picturised as an ocean containing many islands. The galaxies can be imagined to float in an "ocean" called "saraswaan", the stars can be imagined to float in an "ocean" called "nabhaswaan", and the Earth like planets can be imagined to float in an "ocean" called "samudra arnava".

Just like the Earth orbits the Sun and spins around its own axis due to the combined effects of the Sun's movement and that of the inter-stellar medium that move in different directions on the one hand, the different magnetic fields on the other hand (in a broader scale, these are the effects of "rayi and praana" and "dhaaraa and jaayaa"), the Universe as a whole also moves within the confines of "maayaa". This appears as the receding galaxies, just like the planets sometimes appear to move away from each other. This movement of the Universal field is constant for all structures. This is what you describe as "space has inertia and angular momentum."

It is well known that objects are perceived only during transition. The transition can be of two types: the object can move or the field containing the object can move while the object is stationary (both together are also possible, but they fall into these two groups). In the case of electromagnetic field in space, it is the field that moves at a constant velocity. You also admit it when you say: "ALL matter in motion is in motion with respect to a LOCAL background. Light entering the galaxy is Doppler shifted by the Halo to the galaxies 'c', again at the heliopause to the Sun's 'c', and at the Ionosphere to the Earths 'c', and on ad infinitum." The only difference is that you presume the particle is moving at 'c' with respect to the back ground, which you take as at rest. We take the opposite view of the background with us moving at 'c'. Like we do not experience the motion of the Earth, but think the Sun and the stars are orbiting it, we do not experience the motion of the back ground since we are also moving with it. But the effects in both cases are the same.

Regarding the 3 frames, you are on the right track. Here we quote from one of our posts under the Essay of Mr. Rafael Emmanuel Castel, where we had commented elaborately about Einstein's 1905 paper.

Einstein: We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:

3. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B.

4. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.

Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of "simultaneous", or "synchronous", and of "time". The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.

Our comments: Einstein sets out in the introductory part of his paper: "...the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate...". The "Principle of Relativity" is restricted to comparison of the motion of one frame of reference relative to another. Introduction of a third frame of reference collapses the equations as it no longer remains relativistic. The clock at B has been taken as a privileged frame of reference for comparison of other frames of reference. If privileged frames of reference are acceptable for time measurement, then the same should be applicable for space measurement also, which invalidates the rest of the paper.

Simultaneity refers to occurrence of more than one action sequences, e.g.; events, which measure equal units in two similar action sequence measuring devices, e.g.; clocks, starting from a common reference point, e.g.; an epoch. It is the opposite of successive events. Synchronisation refers to the readings of more than one clock (or interval between event from an epoch), which do not require "clock correction", i.e.; when such readings are compared with a common or identical repetitive action sequence or action sequence measuring devices, their readings match. It is not the opposite of successive events, but can also be simultaneous - for example, two clocks synchronised with each other will give similar readings simultaneously. If one of the clocks give 24 hour reading while the other gives 12 hour reading, then half of the time they will give readings that are synchronized and simultaneous, while half of the time they will not be so. Yet, the results can be made to synchronize by deducting 12 hours from any reading beyond it in the clock giving 24 hours reading. Here the clocks will be synchronized through out, but give simultaneous readings alternatively in succession or otherwise.

In the definition of simultaneity given by Einstein, the two clocks situated at two distant points in the same frame of reference (whether the frame of reference is inertial or not is not relevant as both the clocks and points P and P' are fixed in the frame) are said to be synchronous, if their readings of the identical events in both clocks match. This only refers to the accuracy of mechanical functioning of the clocks and uniformity of the time unit used in both the clocks. This definition is nothing but telling the obvious in a complicated and confusing manner. Since the two clocks are synchronised, they should record equal time in both the frames of reference over equal interval.

We have also shown that if we follow the logic of Einstein, then we will land in a problem like the Russell's paradox of set theory. In one there cannot be many, implying, there cannot be a set of one element or a set of one element is superfluous. There cannot be many without one meaning there cannot be many elements, if there is no set - they would be individual members unrelated to each other as is a necessary condition of a set. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, a collection of objects is either a set with its elements or individual objects, which are not the elements of a set.

Let us examine set theory and consider the property p(x) : x  x, which means the defining property p(x) of any element x is such that it does not belong to x. Nothing appears unusual about such a property. Many sets have this property. A library [p(x)] is a collection of books. But a book is not a library (x  x). Now, suppose this property defines the set R = {x : x  x}. It must be possible to determine if RR or RR. However if RR, then the defining properties of R implies that RR, which contradicts the supposition that RR. Similarly, the supposition RR confers on R the right to be an element of R, again leading to a contradiction. The only possible conclusion is that, the property "x  x" cannot define a set. This idea is also known as the Axiom of Separation in Zermelo-Frankel set theory, which postulates that; "Objects can only be composed of other objects" or "Objects shall not contain themselves".

In order to avoid this paradox, it has to be ensured that a set is not a member of itself. It is convenient to choose a "largest" set in any given context called the universal set and confine the study to the elements of such universal set only. This set may vary in different contexts, but in a given set up, the universal set should be so specified that no occasion arises ever to digress from it. Otherwise, there is every danger of colliding with paradoxes such as the Russell paradox, which says that "S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member. Is S a member of itself?" Or as it is put in the everyday language: "A man of Serville is shaved by the Barber of Serville id and only if the man does not shave himself?" Such is the problem in Special theory of Relativity.

Thus, "when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or - what comes to the same thing - to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch", we must refer to a common reference point for time measurement, which means that we have to apply "clock corrections" to individual clocks with reference to a common clock at the time of measurement which will make the readings of all clocks identical. (Einstein has also done it, when he defines synchronization in the para below). This implies that to accurately measure time by some clocks, we must depend upon a preferred clock, whose time has to be fixed with reference to the earlier set of clocks whose time is to be accurately measured. Alternatively, we will land with a set of unrelated events like the cawing of a crow and falling of a ripe date palm simultaneously. A stationery clock and a clock in a moving frame do not experience similar forces acting on them. If the forces acting on them affect the material of the clock, the readings of the clocks cannot be treated as time measurement. Because, in that case, we will land with different time units not related to a repetitive natural event - in other words, they are like individual elements not the members of a set. Hence, the readings cannot be compared to see whether they match or differ. The readings of such clocks can be compared only after applying clock correction to the moving clock. This clock correction has nothing to do with time dilation, but only to the mechanical malfunction of the clock.

There is nothing like empty space. Space, and the universe, is not empty, but full of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation from the Big-Bang. In addition to this, space would also seem to be full of a lot of other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation from low radio frequency to gamma rays. This can be shown by the fact that we are able to observe this radiation across the gaps between galaxies and even across the "voids" that have been identified. Since the universe is regarded as being homogeneous in all directions, it follows that any point in space will have radiation passing through it from every direction, bearing in mind Olber's paradox about infinite quantities etc. The "rips" in space-time that Feynman and others have written about are not currently a scientifically defined phenomenon. They are just a hypothetical concept - something that has not been observed or known to exist. Thus, "light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space" would be affected by these radiations and get distorted.

We will be happy to answer any more questions.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Peter,

Congrats for making it to the top ten! This is because of your relentless effort and innovative essay.I saw in your essay your visiualization of reality,as you said,from different cerebral hemispheres.It is good that you have tried to connect it to my theme of the essay and I gladly welcome it.Iam extremely sorry for not expressing my congrats before you posted your response to me.

Iam delighted to know how you have connected the idea of 'quantization of acceleration' to condensed matter physics thro' your imaginative article.

Regarding BHs,their existence for me was presumptuous.For this,please, go to my web-site "http://www.sreenath.webs.com".

Iam glad to hear that you have been invited to write/edit a GUT chapter in an EBook publication.I want to participate in this, if you are willing, by contributing an article.

Thanking you.

Sincerely

Sreenath.

Dear Sir,

We have declared that we are an amateur. Thus, it is not surprising that we do not understand much. However, because of the same reason, we are free from many cultural shackles that affect modern science. May be we are wrong, but it appears to us as if you are contradicting yourself.

First let us examine your assumptions. If you can't rationalize something, you "assume the problem is with me not the theory." We think this is equally bad as assuming the theory is wrong. You must visit the root of the issue and identify the contradictions. We go about it in 5 different steps, which we are not discussing. Then we proceed to examine the validity of the postulate in another 5 different steps, which we are not discussing. Ultimately, if it is proved, we accept the proof or else leave it as unsolved.

How can you: "ensure I fully understand and looks at different viewpoints and connections before rejecting anything." There may be other viewpoints and connections.

It is good to "head straight for the apparent clashes, anomalies and problem areas". But this should not mean "paradoxes are my life blood, as they all have a choice of solutions." If you go through our comments under various threads, you will see that we have confronted a large number of paradoxes and solved each and every one. But we do not claim that "paradoxes are my life blood". This has a negative connotation. We will give one example from aerodynamics.

When the planes faster than mach 1 were being developed, an infinity appeared in aerodynamic formulas, when the velocity of a body approached the velocity of sound in the medium where the body moved. The resistance of the medium to such motion turned out to be infinite. This would mean that supersonic motion would be impossible. But when the experiment showed otherwise, the issue was analyzed afresh. It was found that the aerodynamic formulas described the resistance in a continuous medium, without considering any abrupt jumps in density and pressure (you will be interested because we are talking about discrete space). However, the transition from subsonic to supersonic motion is associated with violating this condition. A shock wave (bow-shock that interests you) appears in the medium in front of the body thereby causing a jump in density and pressure of the medium in front of the wave. When the formulas were reviewed to include discontinuity of the medium, the infinity disappeared from the formula and the correct and finite values were returned.

This shows that whenever infinity appears in a formula, it points to either some missing parameters or a novel phenomenon. Thus, the mechanisms of renormalization or the brute force approach used by physicists are wrong. Yet, no one is going to admit or abandon it. The same is true for singularity. As long as you clutch to Relativity, you will continue with this mistake. Thankfully, we ignore Relativity, hence do not commit this mistake.

You "believe even QM will eventually prove logical to us once our understanding reaches the correct level". But how do you know what is the correct level? Scientists world over are saying for decades that Standard Model, SUSY and Higgs boson are correct models. How long we can continue to waste public money in such fanciful ideas?

We agree that Nature is the final arbiter. Hence we have derived all our theories from verifiable natural phenomena. You might have noticed we have not used any exotic mathematics or complex numbers in any of our formulations. All our definitions are precise and natural. We do not look for anomalies, we look for solutions.

Regarding "ONE 'bigger frame of reference' and they are not 'linked'," kindly read our reply again. Measurement is comparison between similars. We have given the Eddington's example earlier to show that you must move with the object to be measured at the same velocity. If you compare the result with another motion in a frame of reference not connected to your frame of reference, your result will be wrong. Kindly read it again carefully.

Regarding your bus example, we have read it earlier and in the above post written that "It is well known that objects are perceived only during transition. The transition can be of two types: the object can move or the field containing the object can move while the object is stationary (both together are also possible, but they fall into these two groups)." You have quoted us telling that different forces co-exist. You are describing the same with one example. While we are taking of concepts, you are taking of events. Then where is the contradiction? Apply our concept and tell us what is wrong. Is it because we did not follow your theory and explained the phenomena differently?

First you say: "The plasma does the precise job our imaginary 'dark matter' does, and in the same places!" Then you contradict yourself by saying: "You misunderstand ... I am saying PLASMA IS 'dark matter' - it's just a case of what we name it!" If plasma does the precise job of dark matter in the same places, it is not dark matter, but something different that does similar work in the same places. You say dark matter is imaginary, but plasma is not imaginary. Then how can plasma be dark matter. In any way, as far as we know, no one in the scientific community agrees with your views. Of course, we may be wrong.

We have derived your DFM, when we wrote: "The confined structures in which inertia of restoration dominates, is called particle (moorty). In the opposite case, it is called "amrita". This can be considered as your DFM." But you could not explain Nature the way we have described it. We have theoretically derived the charge of quarks that contains an error element of 3 percent over the accepted values. We have theoretically derived the charge of proton and neutron differently, which can be verified in the laboratory. We have theoretically deduced the value of the fine structure constant It is 7/960 (1/137) at the so called zero energy level and 7/900 (1/128) at 80 GeV level, which agrees with the measured values. Till date no other scientist has done it. We have given a different law to replace the Coulomb's Law. We have explained the origin of the fundamental forces of Nature and why efforts to unite gravity will not succeed. Can you derive these or other verifiable values from your theory or explain natural phenomena like we had done? If yes, please go ahead and prove yourself. Simple boasting is not "proof".

Once again, we are an amateur. We may be wrong. But our exact mistake should be pointed out with proof and not self-contradictory or preconceived superstition. That is not science. Nothing personal.

Regards,

basudeba.

Hi Peter,

I saw on another thread that you were concerned about me cutting up a couple of perfectly good soccer balls.

Too late! I bought a couple of inexpensive size 4 (kid-sized, regulation is size 5) soccer balls at the local discount store. One has black pentagons, and the other has pink pentagons (I wanted to be able to distinguish the two). I put 17 cuts into each of them, and have taped and glued one of them into a half torus. I still need to finish the second one. Some interesting geometries are arising from this mess - it looks like this "torus" will be oval shaped, and it may have hyperbolic saddle surfaces. If we are willing to warp the soccer ball's pentagons and hexagons enough, then we can make a perfect torus, but I'm trying to get an idea of what this torus looks like with more-or-less normal shaped pentagons and hexagons.

If my ideas about Buckyballs representing the core of a Black Hole, and about torsion reshaping these buckyballs into tori is correct, then these odd-shaped tori may represent the core of a rotating Black Hole. Carbon-60 Buckyballs have superconductor properties that expel electromagnetic fields. Wouldn't it be cool if this torus likewise excluded gravitational fields? That would be a GEM-like analogy that Edwin might enjoy...

Have Fun!

Sir,

The answer to your your quest about the core of black holes lies somewhere else.

Black holes, like neutron stars, are dominated by magnetic fields, which close on itself. Thus, they spiral inwards infinitely towards the center of mass. Being magnetic fields, they are also cooler regions. The mechanism of Sun spots are the same as that of the black holes. That's how they can exist at the center of hot galaxies. The current theory of black holes are totally wrong and must be discarded.

The structures dominated by magnetic fields three times numerous (99 different types in number) than those dominated by high energy structures like galaxies and stars. In case you want to know more about it, you may write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Peter and Basudeba,

I'm still playing with this 3-D puzzle with two butchered footballs, but I think that Basudeba is correct - it looks like I'm building a toroidal spiral...

It isn't a simple toroidal Moebius strip, it may be closer to a toroidal set of paradromic rings. I might need to cut up 4 more Buckyballs to see if they spiral around into a completed 1,080 degree loop. Is it worth the sacrifice of 6 perfectly good footballs (even if they are cheap kid-sized balls?) for the sake of progress?

Have Fun!

Oops! Not 1,080 degrees, but rather 1,440 degrees.

I'm such a goof!

It would take a total of 4 soccer balls to wrap around 1,080 degrees worth, so I only need to sacrifice two more perfectly good footballs.

Have Fun!

Dear Sir,

Fun indeed! At public expenses! Though we pay sometimes for odd balls.

Have Fun.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Basudeba and Peter,

I'm a businessman and an independent researcher, so the soccer balls come out of my fun money. Four soccer balls at $4 each is not my most expensive hobby!

OK - Now to build a theoretical TOE model out of this geometry...

If we have spinning tetrahedra (Vladimir Tamari's essay - which ties in with Gingras' magnetic spin ice) at each of the 60 vertices of a truncated icosahedron, then this represents 240 = 4 x 60 degrees of freedom - which looks a lot like an E8 (also represented by an 8-D Gosset lattice). Now we rip and torque four of these nested soccer balls into a toroidal set of paradromic rings. We now have a 32-dimensional Spin(32) ~ E8 x E8 x E8 x E8. Based on anticipated symmetries, I would say that one of these E8's is real, one is imaginary, and the last two are quaternionic. This is twice as big as the SO(32) ~ E8 x E8 that Lawrence Crowell and I have been talking about, but the SO(32) always implied a 32-D Spin(32) of order 992 and/ or a 31-D SU(32) (my 28-D F-theoretical model in PSTJ 1,7 "The Nature of Dimensions" plus 3-D Space or 4-D Spacetime?) of order 1023.

I'm sorry - I get carried away with some of the math!

The next question:

Since we cannot see 32 dimensions in our classical scale, in which scales do these dimensions live?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - Basudeba - I understand that you were concerned about the fairness of the Community vote. I think the purpose of the Community vote is to get some discussions going, and have some "peer review". It seems that so many of the participants were non-professionals that there weren't very many "professional reviews", and many votes came down to popularity. If this happened randomly, then it was in agreement with the rules.

Hi Peter,

When you were talking about tokamak geometry earlier, I was envisioning Hopf fibration, but I ame convinced that a discrete lattice-like structure must exist. At the bottom of that Wiki page, it says:

"The regular 4-polytopes: 8-cell (Tesseract), 24-cell, and 120-cell, can each be partitioned into disjoint great circle rings of cells forming discrete Hopf fibrations of these polytopes. The Tesseract partitions into two interlocking rings of four cubes each. The 24-cell partitions into four rings of six octahedrons each. The 120-cell partitions into twelve rings of ten dodecahedrons each."

From my prior work with 120-plets (icosahedron, H4, SU(11)) and pentagonal geometries (the pentagram contains the Golden Ratio), I would guess that this 120-cell partition is important.

Still - I wasn't diappointed that my other path was leading to lattices of generalized Moebius strips...

The other dimensions live at other scales - some much smaller than ours (like Lisi's E8) and some much larger. My question pertained more to "Which dimensions live in which scales?" Perhaps this thing we call time is more complex - my F-Theoretic model has real and imaginary time.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Dear Sir,

We do not mix science and religion because science primarily relates to interaction between innate objects, whereas religion relates to cognitive processes. That is the reason psychology and philosophy are not part of science.

In response to your post dated Mar.22, we have given a reply and you can respond to it. It is not surprising that with a closed mind set you jump to conclusions, that are far from simple or true. Hence We agree to disagree. Let us terminate the discussion here as there seems to be little meeting ground.

Regards,

basudeba.

Basudeba

Mixing religion? Certainly not!. But I note you feel philosophy has no part to play in science. It may be said that theoretical science (previously 'natural philosophy') only ground to a halt and headed for it's current crisis when it eschewed philosophical logic. Logic and philosophy are inseparable. I believe also rigorous logic and science should not have been separated on the alter of mathematics.

You say; "..with a closed mind set you jump to conclusions, that are far from simple or true."

I have spent much time studying your theories, with a fully open mind, and gained a good understanding to enable comparisons to be drawn in critical areas, (despite the many Indian language terms). I have complimented your considerable work, pointed out the areas of agreement with the results of mine, and wished you well.

You have done little of this, yet feel it is you who can call me 'closed minded'! If becoming a 'scientist' means coming to such conclusions in the face of such contrary evidence it seems you may be making very good progress Basudeba.

I cannot agree with or follow this route, but wish you luck if you see no other path. My motto is 'seek and we shall find'. Many here are too busy selling to seek.

Peter

Quoting from F. Winterberg

University of Nevada

Reno, Nevada USA

"To overcome the present crisis several leading theoretical physicists have entered a maze of speculations from which there appears to be no escape: The conjectured existence of higher dimensional spaces, previously reserved by the spiritists as the seat for the ghosts of the dead, not supported by a single piece of physical evidence, with all physics laboratories still three-dimensional."

http://physics.unr.edu/Forms/myth.pdf

Hi Yuri,

We just met a couple of months ago, and we probably have a few ideas in common. I like your 3+1 dimensional arguments, but do you really think that is all there is?

I haven't always played with multiple dimensions. The Georgi-Glashow SU(5) preliminary "TOE" has a rank of 4 - which is the minimum dimensionality of a representative torus. And yet SU(5) is not large enough to contain gravity, and gives errors regarding proton decay. So the TOE is bigger than SU(5) - bigger than 4 dimensions.

Lisi's E8 TOE could be represented by an 8 dimensional Gosset lattice. I have some differences with Lisi (fundamentally related to spin statistics and supersymmetry as a unifying umbrella), and think that the TOE is even larger than this - even larger than 8 dimensions.

My essay implies that the importance of scales has been overlooked for the most part. If position and time represent 3+1 dimensions, do the reciprocal dynamic variables - momentum and energy represent another set of 3+1 dimensions? (I think so, and I think that this doubling of dimensions and/or degrees-of-freedom is due to supersymmetry.)

Where does Hilbert Space live? How is it that fundamental "point" particles have a property that we call "spin"? How do fundamental particles "know" their properties? Do these fundamental particles carry "programming" in hidden dimensions that require every electron to have the same intrinsic spin of 1/2 h-bar, to have the same rest mass of 511 KeV/c^2, and to have the same electric charge?

Personally, I cannot reconcile all of these concepts with only 3+1 dimensions. The rest of the trick is to explain why we only experience 3+1 dimensions - even though more most likely exists. Solution - Scales! Scales explain hyperspace. Scales explain marble and wooden quantities (Peter Van Gaalen's essay was largely overlooked in this contest, but his essay is a different argument for multiple dimensions, IMHO).

I understand that Science is based on Reality. If other dimensions exist, then we need to directly observe them or their effects. What if we have and interpreted it differently? What if Dark Energy is "leakage" from a scale of greater complexergy? (Larger and smaller numbers would be stable in a scale of greater complexergy, such as the multiverse scale.) What if strange looking events - such as the recent LHC "Gluon-quark plasma" could be explained by a discrete Spacetime structure? Would that imply more than 3+1 dimensions - such as a very tiny hyperspace scale?

Perhaps other FQXi bloggers would rename all of my arguments as degrees-of-freedom that live in our little 3+1 dimensional Universe, but you still need a "mechanism" that allows our 3+1 dimensional Spacetime to "reach out" and access these degrees-of-freedom.

In more popular terms, if a "Matrix" exists behind Reality that specifies all of our fundamental particles and interactions, then where is the "Matrix" programming? Is it like the computer near us - smart but existing in our 3+1 dimensions? Or must the "Matrix" programing exist beyond our 3+1 dimensional knowledge?

Opinions are like belly buttons - Everybody has one, but some are fuzzier than others. Apply a little bit of Philosophy to "Natural Philosophy" (Physics).

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray