Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/4/12 at 8:50am UTC, wrote If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings...

james akerlund: on 10/4/12 at 8:26am UTC, wrote Hi Georgina, Thank you for your kind comments. I will now try to address...

Sergey Fedosin: on 10/2/12 at 18:27pm UTC, wrote Dear James, Gravitation may has repulsion too. See Gravitational torsion...

Georgina Woodward: on 10/2/12 at 9:22am UTC, wrote Dear James Akerlund, I wanted to let you know that I have taken a look at...

james akerlund: on 9/30/12 at 4:15am UTC, wrote Hi Vladimir, I will indeed look into those essays. Thanks for the...

Vladimir Tamari: on 9/29/12 at 9:27am UTC, wrote Dear Jim, please excuse the delay to respond to your further explanation...

Anonymous: on 9/29/12 at 7:47am UTC, wrote Hi Sergey, In the essay, I say that anything that has both positive and...

Sergey Fedosin: on 9/28/12 at 16:12pm UTC, wrote Dear James, You map gravity to spacetime as its dimension. How about...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "'Energy' can be a measurable. Measured or calculated, number value assigned..." in Cosmological Koans

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, Energy is merely a category of information in the same sense..." in Cosmological Koans

Joe Fisher: "Dear Reality Fans, The real VISIBLE Universe never “started out.”..." in First Things First: The...

isabell ella: "If you are facing Cash app related problems and want to get support..." in Cosmic Dawn, Parallel...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Michael Hussey: "https://www.google.com" in New Nuclear "Magic...

Michael Hussey: "it is really difficult to understand what is all about all the things..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Stefan Weckbach: "I have a problem with the notion of time in the multiverse scenario that..." in First Things First: The...

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM
July 19, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Gravity Is a Dimension by James R. Akerlund [refresh]

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author james r. akerlund wrote on Jul. 10, 2012 @ 12:39 GMT
Essay Abstract

We present four arguments that gravity is the third spacial dimension of spacetime. The first three of these arguments are reinterpretations of "old" science and the fourth argument is "new" science, in that the findings haven't been the subject of one research paper. Along the way, we will show how our understanding of gravity has changed over time and the specific findings that changed our understanding of gravity. This will lead to a contrast between gravity is a force and gravity is a dimension. A summary of the fourth argument is; forces map both positive and negative to spacetime while dimensions map only positive to spacetime, since gravity maps positive to spacetime then gravity is a dimension.

Author Bio

This is the authors second FQXi contest he has entered. Independent researcher currently studying how to communicate with parallel universes without violating the conservation of energy where we assume that each universe is a closed system.

Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 12, 2012 @ 13:12 GMT
Dear Mr. Akerlund,

I just wanted to tell you that your essay about the possibility of gravity being a dimension is one of the most instructive essays I have ever read. Please believe me, it is not out of envious spite that I wish to throw cold water on your highly fanciful entertaining ideas, but I am a realist and I have to tell you that human eyesight can only immediately detect one dimension at the moment human eyesight is in the act of looking. Because of this, visually, the Universe has only one dimension and everything in the Universe when looked at only has one dimension. You can satisfactorily prove this fact for yourself by looking out of the window at your mailbox. You will note that although you may focus your eyes on the mailbox, it is impossible to completely blot out other material in the scene. The only detectable difference between the materials in the foreground from that of the materials in the background is that the material in the foreground appears to be bigger. If you were to go outside to collect your mail, you would notice as you approached your mailbox that it seemed to be getting larger. It would be physically impossible for your mailbox to alter its size three dimensionally; therefore, all sightings are one dimensional in nature. Gravity alas, is merely a deeply flawed humanly contrived nonsensical invisible abstraction.

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 03:26 GMT
Hi Mr. Fisher

I want to thank you for your good comment concerning the "instructiveness" of my essay. In the contest rules 1/3 weight is given to relevancy and 2/3 given to interest. In the subfield of interest is "Well and clearly written, so that it is comprehensible and enjoyable to read." I guess you would give me an "A" for comprehensible then, but an "F" for "Technically correct and rigorously argued, to the degree of a published work or grant proposal."; since the essay didn't convince you.

Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 14:30 GMT
Dear Mr. Akerlund,

Alas, whereas you now have to create vectors and zero points in space for the abstract mail being placed in your perfectly placed abstract mailbox, all I have to do is go out and pick up my real mail from my real mailbox.

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 14, 2012 @ 03:24 GMT
Dear Mr. Fisher

Thank you again for your expressions of admiration. I am humbled. As for the "locating your mailbox" game, you win.

Jim

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 19, 2012 @ 10:13 GMT
Dear James

I have read your essay, and feel you have been rather imprecise in your definitions for example what are the dimensions you refer to of which gravity is the third? As to parrallel universes, I have recently read Brian Greene's The Hidden Reality and he argues for them very well, but I was not convinced. Anyway nice to know there are others in this world exploring all sorts of non-mainstream ideas. Wishing you good luck with this particular universe!

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 20, 2012 @ 01:26 GMT

Thanks for reading my essay. As for your question, it sounds like you are over thinking the issue. You know the three spatial dimensions you are right now using, I'm saying one of them is the gravity dimension not just the up/down dimension.

There is a lot of confusion concerning parallel universes. I'll give you three different forms of paralle universes. 1) Literary parallel universes where every story of fiction creates a parallel uinverse. 2) Cosmological inflation parallel universes where parallel universes are created during cosmological inflation. 3) Different values of π parallel universes, where parallel universes were created during the Big Bang resulting in universes with different values of π. I believe the Brian Greene book is about #2 the argument presented in the paper is about #3. Brian Greene's book shouldn't convince you about #3 or #1. Hope this helps.

Jim

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 21, 2012 @ 11:40 GMT
Jim

You are saying that in an x-y-z space z would be gravity. I understand but do not see how this will work. A room in a house has height (the z dimension) and - oh I see your point its clever - the higher you go the weaker the gravity. Hmm that will work only when when there is one source of gravity in the entire universe, and only if you use spherical coordinates with the radius being the gravity dimension.

In a satellite tumbling in space between the Earth and the moon the z dimension is not necessarily aligned with the line between the centers of the Earth and the Moon...what happens then?

As to multiple Universes you may be right my mind is over thinking about the issue!

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 04:09 GMT

The issue that I try to deal with when I say gravity is the third dimension is that my mind is so ingrained with the human made up notion of planar spatial dimensions that I automatically apply it to spacetime. It looks like you are doing the same thing. The satellite creates it's own mass. That mass is inturn affecting other masses around via newton's equation for attraction between two objects or the more exact Einstein equations for two masses. In other words, each mass creates it's own, as you put, z dimension. The equations of Newton and or Eistein simply measure the change in the z dimension based on the masses involved. Hope I have clarified those issues.

Jim Akerlund

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 05:54 GMT
Thanks for the explanation but it does not yet clear up what happens to the third spatial dimension - is it 'replaced' by gravity? What about a box placed at a Lagrangian point where gravity is zero? Does the box have 3 spatial dimensions and a gravity dimension which is zero?

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jul. 22, 2012 @ 07:26 GMT

If gravity didn't exist (going way beyond reality here), then the universe would have only two spatial dimensions. Gravity created the third spatial dimension. Now for my understanding of the Lagrange points, these are points in spacetime where objects orbit them due to the larger masses creating the points. I am unfamiliar with the equations used to find the Lagrange points, but I looked up "Lagrange points" on wikipedia and on the right side of the page it gives a map of the equipotential gravity around a sun/planet system. As you will see in that map only the planet and sun are the zero gravity points and everything else is greater then zero. The Lagrange points are simply the local minimums.

My cat just brought a mouse into the room and the mouse escaped. Having had experience with this before, where the escaped mouse was pregnent and had babies, and then a daugther found mouse and babies and I couldn't remove mouse and babies from house without extreme daughter distress. I need to remove mouse from house, now! I hope I explained enough for you.

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Aug. 8, 2012 @ 11:23 GMT
Dear James Akerlund,

We may assume that the third generation of dimensionality is inclusive of gravitation, in that the scenario of dimensionality describes a framework of dimensions and their emergence. First generation of dimensionality includes only spatial dimensions, whereas the second generation includes time also in that dimensionality framework. On evolution of string concepts, gravitation is expressional with the dynamics of closed strings in temporal dimension of space-time, and thus the third generation of dimensionality emerges.

With best wishes,

Jayaker

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 01:39 GMT
Hi Jayakar

When Srinivasa Ramanujan sent out his initial letters of math to the math community all of them except one was preceived as not worthy of further investigation. Only Hardy saw something in them. I read your post and I have no idea what you are saying. I tried reading your essay and I got the same thing. In some ways I feel you are onto something, but I can't see my way through your words. I am not Hardy.

Jim Akerlund

James T. Dwyer wrote on Aug. 26, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT
Dear James,

I'm just an unversed pedestrian passerby with some interest in gravity, but I found your essay intriguing. Like Vladimir F.Tamari I found myself wondering what the other two spatial dimensions are. I would have replied to that thread, but I only found disjointed strings...

Your explanation that we are applying "planar spatial dimensions" to spacetime seems inadequate,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Sep. 2, 2012 @ 01:21 GMT
Hi James,

I will try to answer some of your questions. The others I don't answer are because I don't exactly understand them.

First question: "...I found myself wondering what the other two spatial dimensions are." The paper says they are quantum energy that is explained in Penrose's book "The Road To Reality" and in t'Hooft, but I warn you the t'Hooft paper isn't light...

view entire post

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 12:46 GMT
Hi Jim,

Thanks for your consideration and additional explanation. My description of myself as a pedestrian is intended to convey that I have no useful formal education in math or physics.

Unfortunately your link to the 't Hooft paper didn't work. A search of arXiv didn't yield a paper I could identify by your link address, but a recent paper entitled "Duality between a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 03:43 GMT
Hi Jim,

Here is a better link to the t'Hooft paper, arXiv:gr-qc/9310026v2 . I believe this is the paper that leads to the papers you cite in the above post.

Your explanation here is exactly what I was thinking. "Otherwise, attempting to incorporate your additional explanations, would it be correct for me to describe (mostly from your Argument #2) your gravitational dimension to be represented by a point along a radial axis extending from a point mass, with the other two dimensions analogous to the longitudinal and latitudinal global coordinates relative to a radial gravitational coordinate?"

As for your point here: "My point about the moon is that, unlike objects of nearly zero relative mass interacting with a massive object (such as a bowling ball and the Earth) that effectively free fall, the Moon produces its own gravitational field. While Newton only evaluates the gravitational attraction between two objects of mass, doesn't GR describe the local interactions between two fields of spacetimes, each curved by a discrete object of mass? Don't all massive objects effectively accelerate all other objects towards their own center of mass? In this case the curvature of spacetime produced by the Earth accelerates the Moon towards its center of mass, but the Moon is also accelerating the Earth towards its own center of mass - there are two opposingly directed fields of accelerating spacetime that produce Newton's effective attraction force. Sorry if I'm 'making up' my own terminology here - no need for you to respond." It looks like your are trying to describe gravitational barycenter. Go to this website for a Wikipedia Barycentric coordinates definition. Let me know if this helps.

Jim Akerlund

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 16:35 GMT
Hi Jim,

Barycentric coordinates are an interesting adjunct to your, as I understand, proposed mass-centric coordinate system. FYI, not all mass is spherically configured, i.e., condensing clouds of gas and/or dust and, especially at larger scales where innumerable discrete objects of mass are aggregated.

But I'm thinking more of a point in space between...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 23:46 GMT
Note: the preceding comment was intended as a reply to the preceding thread...

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 03:45 GMT
Hi Jim,

Your first paragraph seems to be trying to describe a rigid framework and applying it to gravity. The equations of GR are based on where the matter is, not on where the framework is, and then deriving mass motion based on this matter and setting up a framework based on that. The surface of equal gravitational attraction relative to a mass(the other two dimensions) can appear...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:53 GMT
Hi Jim,

That is a most interesting response! No, I was thinking more along the lines that when men actually did reach the Moon, they were able to stand upright on its surface, then being more directionally accelerated by the Moon's gravitation than the Earth's.

My second paragraph was much better explained in reality (sans dead dogs) by Lagrange.

Sorry for my inept explanations - I hope this helps.

Jim Dwyer

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 04:36 GMT
Dear james r. akerlund

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material (definition from the ABSOLUTE theory of me) - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Kind Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 08:50 GMT
Hi Hoang Cao Hai,

I went to your essay that you have posted for this contest and I see in the comments the exact same letter as the one above. I then read some of the comments and see that I am not the only one you have done this too. It seems you are copying and pasting this form letter to all of the FQXi contestants to get them to comment on your essay. I am not going to fall into the same trap, and therefore am under the impression that the above comment was not posted in the spirit of true seeking of understanding, but actually just a simple ad. Or in the days of the internet, spam.

Jim Akerlund

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear James,

You map gravity to spacetime as its dimension. How about electromagnetic field?

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 07:47 GMT
Hi Sergey,

In the essay, I say that anything that has both positive and negative values isn't a dimension. The electromagnetic field has both positive and negative values in its field so therefore it isn't a dimension. Dimensions, positive only. Forces, both positive and negative. Don't know what it is if it is negative only, if that even exists?

Jim Akerlund

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 09:27 GMT
Dear Jim, please excuse the delay to respond to your further explanation about your concept of gravity. In details it is quite different from my views, but thrashing these things out is important. Hope your Mini Mouse problems are solved!!

OK. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

Thank you and good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 04:15 GMT

I will indeed look into those essays. Thanks for the direction. I counted up the number of essays in this contest and it is almost 300. The last contest had only around 150 essays. Lots to read. I do feel sorry for the judges in this contest.

Jim Akerlund

Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 09:22 GMT
Dear James Akerlund,

I wanted to let you know that I have taken a look at your essay. I have probably not spent as much time with it as I would require to thoroughly understand all of your presentation. I can see that, at the end, you very clearly state which false assumption you are addressing, making it relevant to the contest. I don't really understand how altering the way in which the dimensions are considered as you have gives something more useful or overcomes problems. I can appreciate that you have spent a lot of time developing this model and have clearly set out the arguments you have used. Well presented. Kind regards Georgina.

report post as inappropriate

Author james r. akerlund replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:26 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I will now try to address this concern; "I don't really understand how altering the way in which the dimensions are considered as you have gives something more useful or overcomes problems.

In the 19th century, Maxwell united electricity and magnetism to create the electromagnetic field. Electromagnetism is a force. In the 20th century two more forces were found, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. In the 60's and 70's the weak force and the strong force were combined with electrmagnetism to show that all the separate forces we see are actually fallout from the Big Bang of a combined force. In the physicists minds then the only force that needed to be included to wrap up physics was gravity. By my essay saying that gravity isn't a force, then I am saying that the pursuit of combining gravity with electroweak and strong forces is a waste of time. Because forces only combine with forces and dimensions only combine with dimensions. Hope this helps.

Jim Akerlund

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 18:27 GMT
Dear James,

Gravitation may has repulsion too. See Gravitational torsion field which is the second component of gravitational field and can counteract to strong gravitation of nucleons in atomic nuclei explaining strong interaction.

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 08:50 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.