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.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Akinbo Ojo: on 8/18/13 at 10:47am UTC, wrote Hello Ms Vasilyeva, Going through past essays. I am a new participant on...

Michael Haddid: on 11/12/12 at 13:19pm UTC, wrote Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark...

Israel Perez: on 10/10/12 at 10:49am UTC, wrote Dear Vasilyeva Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to...

M. Vasilyeva: on 10/9/12 at 23:12pm UTC, wrote Peter, congratulations on making the list of finalists! I replied in your...

M. Vasilyeva: on 10/9/12 at 21:50pm UTC, wrote Dr. Perez, congratulations on making the list of finalists! Thank you for...

M. Vasilyeva: on 10/9/12 at 19:26pm UTC, wrote Sorry, JR, I have not checked the mail in a while. Had to take a brake from...

Anonymous: on 10/7/12 at 4:33am UTC, wrote Why are you dating Russian girls?

J.R.: on 10/7/12 at 3:48am UTC, wrote Dear M.V. I tried contacting you via your private e-mail about a week ago...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.

FQXi FORUM
May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: The Nature of Space by M. V. Vasilyeva [refresh]

Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 11:17 GMT
Essay Abstract

Space, whose structure and properties dictate all characteristics of matter and forces in it, has been underappreciated by physics. That empty space has a property of a rigid solid constitutes the central paradox of science. For 150 years it has remained unresolved. The work has been neglected due to physics’ century-old decree that declared space empty, which was an act of frustration with ether models that could not resolve the paradox. Pressing ahead without solving the problem led to the current situation where paradoxes have become physics’ distinctive feature and matter and space are fused into an inseparable totality of fields. Mathematical models attempting to describe this totality abound, and yet there is no model of space. In its place is a tradition that discourages discussion of the structure of space for fear of resurrecting old ether theories. This essay attempts to open such a discussion and offers an example of how the topic can be approached with very few assumptions in mind. It shows that, consistently applied, a simple organizing principle can lead to a straightforward solution to the old problem and reveals a dynamic, 4-dimensional, vibrating structure, in time, that conjures up an image of a 4D ocean, the 3D surface of which is the visible Universe.

Author Bio

Ms. Vasilyeva grew up in the former Soviet Union. She graduated from NYU with a degree in computer science. Having worked in the industry in NY and LA, she now lives with her family in the woods of Pennsylvania, pursuing her interests in history of ideas, physiology and physics. A gifted analyst, she loves a good puzzle.

Frank Makinson wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 20:48 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,

The arguments you present in your essay are a danger to the establishment, which has convinced various funding sources to give them \$billions to prove what I consider to be a fallacy.

I note that your references follow the Chicago Style, and I wonder if you were requested to provide that format? Many of the essays do not follow that style.

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 21:19 GMT
Lol, Frank, I disagree with your assessment of my essay. No danger to anyone -- well, it may hurt a bit brains of those who never gave space a thought. I approached physics as a puzzle and I believe I did a good job solving it.

How about you? What do you think of the reality of a 4th spatial dimension? There is nothing radical about the idea.

Frank Makinson replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 22:15 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,

I can not even explain the "nature of our existence", thus agreeing to the existence of a 4th spatial dimension is putting the cart way ahead of the horse. As one of my mentors stated, a Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering (since deceased), we are all a specialized form of energy. Once the atom is broken down into its constitute parts, they pretty much represent...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 17:58 GMT
Frank, I don't think Einstein's curved space-time theory is weird, lol. I rather think it's brilliant. What's more, I believe that he got really lucky with Minkowski spacetime (the idea of which he did not like at first): it worked out so well, because our world _is_ 4D.

As for the specifics of the EM field housed in 3-brane, again I respectfully disagree with your assessment. There is plenty of work explaining it workings and many proposed models, starting with the original Maxwell model. That's why I did not think that I should go into these details. Besides, it is the overall concept derived from the top down approached that I wanted to show.

Member Benjamin F. Dribus wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 21:20 GMT
Dear M.V. Vasilyeva,

I really enjoyed your essay. You make a couple points which I think are crucially important:

1. You note at the very beginning that "space," whatever we take it to be, dictates the characteristics of matter and forces in it. I do not think that this fact is adequately appreciated. It's not that no one knows this; anyone who reads Weinberg's quantum field theory books, for instance, learns how important the Poincare symmetry group of Minkowski space is in determining the properties of particle states. However, people often don't realize just how great an assumption they are making when they ascribe certain properties to space. A lot of otherwise very good ideas in physics just won't work if you try to apply them to the wrong spacetime model.

2. You point out the necessity of understanding the actual physical structure of space. Many people, even physicists, are content to imagine spacetime as 4-dimensional real space, possibly curved, but fail to appreciate the difference between this mathematical abstraction and the actual physical space that interacts dynamically.

You and I have perhaps different ideas on the nature of time; I view time as a manifestation of causality, and my approach to building up spacetime is to use causal relations. I describe this in my essay here: On the Foundational Assumptions of Modern Physics.

In any case, you have written a very intriguing essay, and I wish you the best of luck in the competition. Take care,

Ben Dribus

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 22:14 GMT

"anyone who reads Weinberg's quantum field theory books... learns how important the Poincare symmetry group of Minkowski space is in determining the properties of particle states."

See, from the position of the structure of space, which I advocate, the particles are abstractions of our theories and have very little to do with reality (simply because these abstractions are largely divorced from the underlying geometry of space). Besides, Minkowski spacetime is hardly a suitable model for the quantum scale. There it just does not work. There is another method of modeling time and distance at those scales. Too bad I ran out of space, lol, and could not address it.

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 02:00 GMT
Dear M.V.

I hope you can read Russian

What is common between this flatland and your flatland?

http://modcos.com/articles.php?id=201

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 03:23 GMT
Terminology problem you can solve

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantu
m-gravity-in-flatland

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 04:50 GMT
Yuri, this article in SA has a very different idea from what I describe in my essay and besides, I only use it as an analogy with our 4D world. In SA, they have 2D + time, while in my Flatland analogy I have 3D + time. Even that is too tight, so I don't see how they can do anything meaningful with just 2D. If they curve the plane, as I do, there is a need for a 3rd dimension. If not, what's gravity for them?

In any rate, I use the Flatland analogy to illustrate how we could live in 4 spatial dimensions and not know it. And yes, I took liberties with Abbott's Flatland by modeling it as a surface of a sphere. It illustrates gravity and mass concepts of a 4D world very well. It's the EM field that it cannot handle (well, it allows for either one but not both).

So, to answer your question, there is nothing in common between my analogy and the article in SA where they are seriously trying to figure out quantum gravity in 2D+time. Things are actually easier with more dimensions than less, so I don't understand what they want to achieve. I think I saw that article in SA years ago -? The date of it is not clear in the links you gave.

What did you think of my idea that it is natural for a dynamic vibrating structure that defines space to assume the 4D configuration, because it corresponds to its lowest energy state? I tried to find a theorem to this effect, but was short on time. I hope a good topologist reads my paper and comments.

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 11:22 GMT
I am not topologist, just layman...

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah shirazi wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 10:39 GMT
Dear M.V.,

You have written a paper containing many imaginative ideas and touching upon many different fields in physics. I especially liked how you introduced your ideas with the fable in the preamble. Certainly, the notion that "All the space there is belongs to this universe and can contain nothing else." rings true to me.

As intriguing as your ideas are, I believe physicists...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Armin, thank you for your comments on my essay. Regarding the mathematics, I actually started doing it in the section on time, but then realized that I ran out of space, so I just left it out, expecting the logic of the model to speak for itself. Besides, the model is in line with ADD, the reference to which, with all its mathematics, is included for an interested reader.

Regarding predictions, perhaps you did not check the reference to a dwarf galaxy in a nearby void that shows a deformation in its structure (2011)? Or what about the prediction that the same object can be seen twice from different directions in our sky? Finally, you don't seem to be impressed by my resolution of the old paradox of space, but how would you personally explain that a material object can freely move through what is otherwise impermeable?

Perhaps I should have greater emphasized that what we perceive is actually projections from 4D on either side of the membrane onto its 3D. This explains the quantum uncertainties: some info is lost when you project from a higher space, and then the result varies depending on the angle of the projection. The model explains why a nucleus appears so small from our 3D POV and the half-integer spin of fermions: a full rotation in 4D looks from a 3D POV as 720° or 2 turns necessary to return to the original state.

True, I only listed all this, without going into the details, expecting the reader to have a decent grasp of the basics of the 4D geometry, which perhaps was not right.

The model explains the source of all movement as originating from the structure ejecting the deformations introduced into it locally, thus showing why a naked nucleus gets kicked around much... Why... I thought the premise on which the model stood was sound and that its implications were logically derived.

But I very much appreciate your feedback. Thank you!

Ted Erikson wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 16:19 GMT
M.V.:

Your essay touched on the core of a physics problem.. "space". In space one can observe the motion of mass and keep track of all energies involved, but rarely consider the concomitant "growth" that can occur to affect energy balances..

My model, To Seek Unknown Shores

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

developed in detail in "End Notes", suggests 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D "spaces" achieve 6/16, 9/16, and 1/16 " respective probabilities for growth as motion proceeds.

Comment?

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 08:08 GMT
Alright Ted!

George Rajna wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
Excellent!

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT
Why thank you George! Do tell your friends and relatives :)

George Rajna replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 19:16 GMT
This is my community rating on your essay.

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 20:30 GMT
Yes, thank you, George. Ratings are a part of a contest, but I'm mostly interested in the feedback to my ideas. For example, I would like to know how sound is my idea that a 4D configuration corresponds to the lowest energy state for a dynamic, vibrating structure that defines space. That is the crucial part of my essay. Intuitively I feel that this is right. I looked for a suitable theorem to this effect, but was short on time.

What do you think?

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,

Maxwell's ether theory says that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Special relativity says the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer. What do YOU say?

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 19:20 GMT
Pentcho, I believe the speed of waves is the property of the medium in which they propagate (ex. the speed of sound in air is about constant, modified by some local conditions such as density, temperature, humidity, etc). I do not see why space should be different. So, speed of light is a constant, modified by some local conditions.

Since speed of light is the property of space itself then your question boils down to: what is the observer and how observation can interfere with the wave-medium properties of space.

The result of Michelson-Morley experiment is well known, even though its interpretation varied in time. At first it meant that there was no stationary ether; then it meant that the laws of nature were the same for all observers. What you are saying in your essay is that observer interferes with the local conditions in space, therefore affecting the speed of light. It's hard to argue with that. However, Lorentz transformation shows hows this type of interference cancels out in the end. Perhaps there are different ways of observing -? Would they each come with its own transformation, still giving the same null result?

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 20:26 GMT
Let us assume, in accordance with the classical ether theory, that:

Assumption 1. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, is independent of the speed of the light source.

Assumption 2. The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer.

The null result of the Michelson-Morley is incompatible with the combination of the two...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 21:06 GMT
Pentcho, if you read my essay, I do not support the the classical ether theory. IMHO that was a wrong model, based on wrong assumptions. Why bring it back in?

Your abstract states, "A hypothesis is advanced according to which any shift in frequency implies shift in the speed of light." IMHO, frequency being inversely proportional to wavelength, implies --to me at least-- the shift in wavelength. Which was confirmed by the observation.

Your solution, i.e. that "The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source" contradicts my view, on which I cannot compromise, and that is: the speed of light is the property of space. As such, it is a constant.

What do you think about the reality of a 4th spatial dimension?

Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 21:32 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva, you wrote: "Your solution, i.e. that "The speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies the speed of the light source" contradicts my view, on which I cannot compromise, and that is: the speed of light is the property of space. As such, it is a constant."

Is the speed of light "the property of space" in the same way in which the speed of sound is the property of air? If yes, the speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the observer, and your community rating may plummet.

Best regards, Pentcho

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 22:57 GMT
LOL let it plummet. Hey, Giordano Bruno went to the stake for his convictions. What's rating in an essay contest for a newbie? I want to hear the feedback to my ideas. Do you have any?

To answer your question of my innermost believes, yes, the speed of light is the property of space in the same way as the speed of sound is the property of air. The speed of waves is always the property of the medium in which they propagate and is dictated by the medium.

What you don't seem to understand is that the observer of the speed of sound in the air is on the same footing as the air, while the observer of the speed of light IS NOT ON THE SAME FOOTING AS LIGHT.

I understand where you confusion lies. Many lay people share it. Physics is partially to blame for it, when it declared space empty and substituted the paradox of space with the wave-particle duality (just the topic of my essay, by the way). Ever since, many lay people (and even some physicists) put particles of light (which are just convenient abstractions of momentum of light waves in space) on par with material objects, of which a grandfather clock is the all time favorite, lol.

But I am certain that if you give this just a bit of thought --I highly recommend reading my essay!-- you can overcome these difficulties. I found that just adding 1 spatial dimension, the 4th, suddenly explains all paradoxes, starting with the central paradox of science, which is the paradox of space. Once you solve it, everything just falls into its right place, confusion vanishes and life becomes worth living again :)

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 23:13 GMT
Is the formula v'=v+v0 given by Sidney Redner correct? For sound waves? For light waves?

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19
_doppler.html

Professor Sidney Redner: "We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 8, 2012 @ 23:51 GMT
Pentcho, you do not understand the difference between space and things in space. I am afraid I have exhausted my resources trying to help you and have nothing else to add.

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 02:46 GMT
Hi M.V. Your essay was a fun read, and I think the picture you have of how things work is better than many. I agree that forces and particles should both be described in terms of spacetime geometry (topological solitons of some type), and also that large extra dimensions may be involved. I think you would enjoy reading about the bouncing droplet system -- it is a lot like your flatland. If you have no journal access send me an email, otherwise some references are given in my essay.

Andrew

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 13:15 GMT
Thank you Andrew for your feedback on my essay. I looked up bouncing droplets last night and saw some videos a while ago. This is indeed fascinating. To me it illustrates the fractal nature of reality, where the same principles operate at various scales. I am not sure how to send you an email. Mine is vasilyeva_mv@yahoo.com Yes, I'd love to read more about the bouncing droplet systems.

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 05:46 GMT
Hi M. V. V.,

You wrote "fear of resurrecting old ether theories". Why fear? Is your suggestion a new ether theory? Was Einstein correct when he resurrected the ether in 1920 except for admitting it as preferred system of reference? I

n the discussion you repeatedly used "lol". I doubt that this is a persuading style. Don't some arguments e.g. by Pentcho Valev and Frank Makinson...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT
Hi Eckard,

No, my model is not an ether theory. I offer a geometrical model of space in 4D at low, everyday energies, where matter and space are separate (they may be one and the same at very high energies, a point I omitted in my essay). The setup is in line with ADD model, the reference to which is listed.

No, IMHO, "ether" cannot be used "as preferred system of reference". This is because space is a dynamic, fluid structure, and as such is not suitable for this purpose, just as captains cannot use the real ocean as a frame of reference for navigation and must rely on stars (and now, GPS).

Neither do I find paradoxical that space (spatio vacuo) actually exists. The paradox is that the spatio vacuo contains the same field that makes matter impenetrable to other matter. And yet we move through it with ease.

I am glad that we are in agreement that waves require a medium. Funny times we live in. 100 years ago this was still a given and people were only starting to scratch their heads, lol, trying to understand the abstractions of Einstein's theory. Today, such an obvious notion puts many in a state of stupor and all they can reply is "but there is no ether". As if there is no other ways of modeling space.

Frank Makinson replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 18:53 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,

I appreciate Eckard responding about ether, he explains it better than I can. I read an article some time ago where a person stated that the arguments used for the need of a Higgs boson, and its related field, were essentially the same arguments used for the need of "aether".

Your last comment contained: "I offer a geometrical model of space in 4D at low, everyday...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 09:02 GMT
Thank you M. V. V. for responding. Being ignorant of the ADD model, I read: "Results from the Large Hadron Collider do not appear to support the model."

Perez argues for reloading the preferred system of reference. I just doubt that this is possible when he maintains Einstein's SR. Admittedly, I only found out that the primary reason for Einstein to fabricate SR was based on the most...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Marek A. Michalski wrote on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear M.V. Vasilyeva,

It is my essay:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1516

Comment?

Mare
k

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 00:16 GMT
Dear Marek, you seem to be unaware of Lorentz transformation that also explained the null result of Michelson-Morley experiment. It is great that you came up with a similar idea on your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

http://en
.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations

Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 02:02 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva

I really enjoyed reading your inspiring essay. I agree with most of your essay and I would like to make some comments and state some doubts.

First you argue that you are not in support of the old aether notion and you also argue that it was wrong. I wonder why you think, it was wrong. Could you make some comments.

You state an old paradox with the question: how...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 06:57 GMT
Dear Israel,

Thank you for your feedback on my essay. It is regrettable that you approached it with some preconceived notions and also lacking certain understanding of the 4D geometry, which is clear from your following comment:

"You are supporting the view that the 3D space we experience everyday is some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of 4D, likewise as a sheet of metal could be embedded in a solid sphere. "

It appears that you do not know that the surface of a 4D object, such as a hypersphere, is 3-dimensional in the same way as a surface of a sphere is a 2D plane. The 2D surface of a sphere is not "some sort of solid embedded in another physical space of" a sphere, but is an integral part of it. Similarly, the 3D surface is an integral part of a hypersphere. It seems all your confusion about my essay stems from this lack of basic geometric awareness. In line with other multidimensional models, I called this 3D surface a membrane, instead of always referring to it as a (hyper)surface.

In addition, I am not sure what you mean by "solid dimensions" which you differentiate from "geometrical dimensions". This seems your original definitions and usage, on which I cannot comment.

Regarding the KK model predictions that you refer to, they were based on the wrong assumption that the extra dimension was equally accessible to both matter and radiation as the observed 3. The same wrong assumption was the reason why Klein invented compactification: to ensure that the extra dimension was well hidden and thus in line with the question of why we do not see it. In my essay I show that this was both wrong and unnecessary.

Regarding your question of why ether was a wrong model, first, the concept itself stems from air, which cannot support transverse waves, and second, the theory never considered the 4D nature of space, assuming that it had only 3 observed dimensions.

You also say: "... that this paradox is only valid considering that space is some sort of fluid. Today physics does not assume space as such and therefore there is no paradox for contemporary physics. My question in this respect is: don't you think that by reviving the old problem you are also contradicting current views, in particular, the general and the special relativity?"

That physics decreed 100 years ago that space was empty is in fact the topic of my essay, in which I argue that it was the wrong turn.

In no way does my model contradicts current views. You seem to have missed the part where I say that the model is the same overall as other models with large extra dimension (which are in line with relativity).

You also say: "Something that was not clear for me is whether you think that the universe was created in the Big Bang (BB) or not. ... What reasons can you provide to explain the lost of dimensions? "

In the essay I say, "in line with big bang theory, we could assume that initially the structure had infinite number of dimensions, but once it cooled off, it settled into 4D." I presume you are aware of the high energies at first instances after the BB. These high energies correspond to higher-dimensionality of space. When space cools off, its structure precipitates from higher-dimensions into lower, i.e. it looses dimensions, as if energies hidden in higher dimensions trickle down all the way to 4D, increasing the bulk and hyperssurface area, which corresponds to expansion.

Similarly, going in the direction of increasing energy, when the structure is put under too much pressure locally, because it is non-compressible, it will bulge out into an additional dimension (and by the way, in this context, the appearance of singularities is what marks the door into a higher dimension). When the local pressures let go, the energies hidden in extra-dimension trickle back into the 4D bulk, causing it to expand, which, in turn, increases its 3D surface area, causing perceived expansion of space.

Regarding the process of "precipitation into a lower D", being only an analyst, I can't adequately speak for topology. My hunch is that the method based on Hamilton-Ricci flow, quite possibly the one perfected by Grigory Perelman in his latest work, may shed some light on the specifics.

Again, thank you for your feedback.

I have read your essay today and found it interesting, even though I cannot conceive of an absolute reference frame, for which you advocate. I see absolute reference frame an abstraction that cannot exist in reality. But it is the plurality of our views is that is valued in this contest. Best regards to you!

Anonymous replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva

Thank you for reply, I appreciate it. Some times the discussions between people is only a matter of semantics. Unfortunately, I did not express my ideas properly and so you replied with something like this: "It appears that you do not know... ...is a 2D plane." My apologies for this.

Clearly I understand geometrical dimensions, and according to your reply you propose...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Vic Kley wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 04:03 GMT
Ms Vasilyeva,

Can you offer up any specific experiment or present unexplained phenomena that may be illuminated by your vision of 4D Space/Time?

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 07:50 GMT
Hi Vic Kley,

Thank you for your question, even though I'm not sure what else to say in addition to what I already said in the essay. I offered several explanations, from simple ones, such as, why a nucleus appears so small (because it exists in 4D, outside the 3D that we perceive and is only touching it) to why voids are empty, why light gets tired, or why there is no need to invent dark matter and dark energy, because both 'attractive' and 'repulsive' gravity emerges from the same property of the hypersurface of the hypersphere, which is our world, to minimize its hypersurface area. (after e-talking to Israel above I am not sure what terms to use, since a membrane or brane confused him).

How about the solution to the paradox of space? From the exchanges with other contributors here I see now that the problem is worse than it appeared to me initially. After 100 years people have become so used to the incongruous idea of waves propagating through emptiness, without any medium, that they do not see a paradox. But this is fundamentally wrong. Waves do require a medium. The medium in question cannot be "ether", simply because the phenomenal speed of transverse waves imply a super-rigid solid. Or a surface of incompressible fluid.

It's late here. I will think over your question and post tomorrow. In the mean time, would you please tell me why what I already listed in my essay does not seem for you enough. Thank you.

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
Mr Kley, I replied to your question in a comment below.

Thank you for your interest to my essay.

James T. Dwyer wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 11:17 GMT
Hi M. V.,

I read through your essay briefly - to be honest I was more intrigued by your discussions. I'm not a physicist myself but I've been vertically tunneling to collect 'core' samples, developing a personal understanding of gravitation in order to address some specific issues (i.e., see my brief essay 1419).

While waves do often propagate in a material medium, as I understand...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:47 GMT
Hello James!

Thank you for your interest in my essay. I like the vividness with which you describe how you perceive the world. I will certainly read your essay and will comment in your thread.

Inger Stjernqvist wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Ms Vasilyeva,

I have by now read your most interesting and thought-provoking essay several times with growing intrerest and, at least I hope, also with some growing understanding.

What fascinates me most of all is that you, more or less in one blow, explain both the large-scale structure of the Cosmos, and the small-scale structure of elementary particle interactions. The fluid in the "headroom" above the 3D membrane being in both cases the medium of interaction, and the membrane the border between matter and space.

Or have I completely mis-understood? If so, since I'm netither a physicist nor a mathematician (as you already know) I don't apologize for my lack of knowledge. It is better to try to understand and miss the point, than not trying at all - and be sure to miss it

Your history of time is perhaps a bit brief in comparison, but I like your concept of time as energy - and your down-to-earth Tick-tack. "Tack", as we say in Sweden when we mean thank you! You have given me more than a lot to think about.

My very best wishes!

Inger

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 16:59 GMT
Thank you Inger! You can't imagine how much I appreciate your comment.

Please see the post bellow (coming up) in response to Mr. Kley's question above in which, within the framework of my model, I attempt to dispel the mystery of the wave-particle duality.

Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:33 GMT
Mr Kley,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. It was very late for me when I saw your question. In my reply I used wrong terms in the sentence which should have read: both 'attractive' and 'repulsive' gravity emerge from the same property of the hypersurface of the 4D structure of space that seeks to minimize its hyperarea.

You asked, "Can you offer up any specific experiment or present unexplained phenomena that may be illuminated by your vision of 4D Space/Time?"

Having thought your question over, I decided to address the wave-particle duality, with which physics replaced the paradox of space. This duality is best revealed in the double slit experiments. I would like to use this opportunity to demonstrate that, from the 4D perspective, there is no mystery why both matter and light appear to move in waves. In my essay I only briefly mention this in the Flatland analogy.

Before we begin, it is important to appreciate that a hypersphere has 3-dimensional surface, each point of which is equidistant from its center, in the same way as each point of the 2D surface of a sphere is equidistant from the center of the sphere. This topological fact is what makes the 3D space we perceive invariant in all 3 directions and precludes the possibility of selecting a preferred reference frame. The dynamic nature of the 4D structure also makes it unsuitable for the role of the absolute reference frame (just like sea captains can't use ocean as a reference frame and must rely on the external clues such as stars or GPS).

The other aspect of the 4D geometry worth remembering is that form a 4D perspective, each point of the volume of a cube is visible in one sweep just like we grasp each point of the 2D plane in one glance. In a sense, from a 4D perspective, a 3D volume of a cube appears flat, similar to a 2D plane seen from 3D.

With this in mind, let us see how a double slit experiments works out in 4D, on the simplified analogy of the Flatland Plane (the Flatland analogy is indispensable, because 4D is virtually impossible for most people to visualize).

First, I would like you to please take a look at the following image from google images, since I can't post images here:

http://ej.iop.org/images/0295-5075/94/2/20004/Full/epl1
3428fig1.jpg

The top image, (a) is a side-view snapshot of a hexagonal lattice aggregate of bouncing droplets on a vibrated liquid bath that interact via the surface waves they emit and form various types of stable crystalline clusters [1]. Suggested by Andrew Norton, it is indeed an excellent model of the Flatland nanoscale with droplets representing nuclei confined to the outer, empty side of the Plane (in the "headroom"). Please take a good look at the image again and imagine 3 such aggregations, at some distance apart from each other. These 3 aggregations of droplets/atoms represent the solid structure of the plate with 2 slits in between.

Now please appreciate the fact that light waves, an electron, an atom or a molecule, all move along the surface of the Plane (or hyperplane in 4D) that contains the EM field. The difference between a light wave and, say, an atom, is that the light wave is the transverse disturbance in the surface itself (just like a transverse wave in the surface of water) and as such is entirely confined to the EM field it contains, while "matter" (stuff with intrinsic mass) glides just above this surface in the 3rd dimension (3rd dimension in the Flatland analogy and in the 4th dimension in our world). Nuclei are integrated into the surface by their electron clouds interacting with the EM field in it. The electron cloud makes the indentation a nucleus makes in the surface locally even with the rest of the surface and at the same time acts as a sort of a roller or better yet, a surf-board on which the nucleus surfs the light waves themselves. (In this context, the increase in the inertial mass at high speeds is mostly due to the electrons interacting with the EM field contained in the surface.)

Thus there is no difference in the path a particle of light or a material object takes. A light particle is a convenient abstraction that stands for the momentum of a light wave in space (or, a hyperplane). A material object, such as an atom, can also be represented by a point that too follows the same path. It is the structure of space itself that dictates all movement by expelling the deformation introduced into it locally into the direction that gives (even though, of course, there is a difference in the transverse disturbance that we perceive as light and a longitudinal disturbance we perceive as mass).

In this model it is essential to realize that everything we perceive directly or with the help of our technology are the projections onto the 3D surface of the hyperplane. Matter moves along the same surface as light waves themselves. Thus the interference pattern seen in the double slit experiments is the reflection of the fluid nature of the structure of space itself.

I also would like to emphasize that the strict separation between matter and space of the model I propose is applicable only at low energies of our own experience. At very high energies, the number of space dimensions grows in proportion to the energy density. At high energies, in higher number of dimensions, the geometries of space and matter intermix and are best described by the multidimensional models of string theories.

Again, I thank you for your interest in my essay and for giving me opportunity to address this important question, which I could not do within the constrains of the requirements.

References

[1] A. Eddi, A. Boudaoud and Y. Couder, (2011, doi:10.1209/0295-5075/94/20004), Oscillating instability in bouncing droplet crystals. http://iopscience.iop.org/0295-5075/94/2/20004

Ke Xiao replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 07:57 GMT
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,

It is basically alright. The de Broglie wavefunction is described in the four dimensional spacetime. The slit takes one dimension and the light-beam takes another dimension, therefore, the equations of the double slit interference can be described in 4-2=2 dimensional space-time. Of cause you can still argue about the width of slit and the 3D surface electron cloud, and so on. My essay “Rethink the double slit experiment” have the detailed calculations compared with many experiments. There are real math-physical calculations, not a graphic illustration. The most important part is the connection between the two slit by the cross-linked angle, which is derived from the particle scattering to the wave function. In that way, the particle-wave duality paradox is linked to the space-time. I have my email in the essay, please send an email if you like to talk more.

Yours

KX

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 13:59 GMT
Thank you Ke Xiao for your feedback. Even though it was somewhat difficult for me to read your highly technical essay, I did grasp its main point, namely that the wave-particle duality paradox lies in the structure of spacetime itself. Here we are in agreement; and while you amply speak to the professionals, I offer a geometrical representation of the same on the simplified analogy, making it accessible to the lay public.

Xie xie!

Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,

In Coherently-cyclic cluster-matter paradigm of universe, the dimension of time emerges from 1D eigen-rotational string that demonstrates 3D tetrahedral-brane transformation from 2D membrane surfaces by the eigen-rotational phases of that string.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear M. V. Vasilyeva,

" To remove water from a cup, it is necessary to fill it instead of water by the air. Further, in my

interpretation to remove air from a cup, we should fill the cup instead of air by the ether. Thus,

the cup can not be empty, only one medium can be replaced by another. Ether, according to

Aristotle, "is more subtle substance" than the air."

I also think the gap or space is not empty but full of energy; Nothingness does not exist.

I read your essay with carefully. It is interesting approach and I would like to have your view point about a gravity question : what do you think about gravity and space or dark energy, which relationship do they maintain between them.

Do you think that the expansion of the space is a force opposite to the Gravity ?

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1552

Thank you and lall the best.

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 15, 2012 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Amazigh Mabrouk Hannou,

I tired reading your essay but had a very hard time understanding your "accent in print". This is because, even though I know several languages, I have not studied yours. I think it is important to have our papers checked by a native English speaker before submission. This becomes especially important when introducing new ideas.

Regarding your question of gravity, my approach is purely geometrical and is inline with Einstein's general relativity, which treats gravity as a curvature in 4D spacetime. My take on it is that this curvature is due to surface tension of a 4D ocean of perfect fluid that seeks to minimize its hyperarea (similar to water tension in 3D).

In a topological sense, in 4D, there may be another reason for 3/4 - 1/4 distribution of energies. It may be due to the fact that a convex 4-space can be broken down into 4 contiguous, adjacent 3-spaces. This means that a convex 4D object, such as a hypersphere discussed in my essay, can be broken down into 1/4 for its 3D surface and 3/4 for its bulk. (The same does not work for a sphere, but works, with different numbers, for all n-spaces where n>3.) The same overall distribution of hypersurface to hypervolume, 1/3 to 3/4 respectively, applies to other convex 4D objects, even though actual proportions may vary a bit when they deviate from a hypersphere, which has the minimal surface area.

Take care!

eAmazigh M. HANNOU replied on Sep. 18, 2012 @ 16:05 GMT
Dear Ms Vasilyeva,

I write in French and I translate into English.

To be honest, I must admit that it is advisable for me what you have just made as remark.

The reason is that I discovered this contest only later.

Then, I had only two choices, to quickly write the article in my language and then translate it in a record time, or not participate at all, and wait until next year.

I chose the second option. I said to myself that if someone is interested in my ideas, we are human and I can always catch me up later.

What is important, is the idea and not the way that it is formulated.

And I sincerely believe that the idea which I have formulated will mark the history by its relevance and will make smile also by its shape, these are the vagaries of life.

If you are interested by any side of this model please let me know it, I would answer, with pleasure, your expectations.

I hope my translation is enough good for more understanding.

I wish you all the best.

P.S. your 1/4 and 3/4 interest me.

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 15:07 GMT
Dear

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...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 23:53 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva,

You say:

"But in this model there is no gravity per se. What we call gravity emerges entirely from the interaction of mass (which is displacement of volume) with the surface tension of the structure wanting to minimize its surface area."

What are your thoughts on dark energy as opposed to gravity?

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT
Mr Hoover,

I am not certain what is meant by dark energy currently (it keeps on changing). Trying to see from where you are coming to it, I read your essay and saw this picture, which I also found on google images:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/
2011/05/23/549761main_pia14094-43_946-710.jpg

This is an artist rendition of a 4D model of space, with one dimension removed, the green grid representing gravity (= curvature of the 3D surface on which "matter floats") and purple grid representing dark energy that pushes on matter, pressing it into the surface, displacing a volume and causing it to curve. That's how I understand it. The articles that came with the same image says, "This contradicts an alternate theory, where gravity, not dark energy, is the force pushing space apart. According to this alternate theory... gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive when acting at great distances." I agree that gravity becomes repulsive at great distances (where voids form in my 4D model of space). This is stems from pure 4D geometry.

I personally do not agree that the universe is expanding, especially at ever-increasing rate. First, why don't we see it right where we are? The whole idea is based on the redshift and in my essay I offer another explanation to it.

But I understand what you're interested in and that is the enigma of UFOs and how they move as if inertia is none of their concern. I happened to see 2 small saucers at a very close range. I saw them about 25-30 meters away and then I ran towards them and got even closer. I was an adolescent then, and my impressions were vivid and observations sharp. Because of this I do not disregard other people's accounts.

I absolutely agree with you that there is a way to manipulate the curvature of the 3D surface (on which we live, according to my 4D model of space) which we call gravity. For this we need to have a better understanding of space, which we don't. In fact, the situation is just deplorable, as this contest demonstrates. The establishment is so entrenched in a particular way of looking at things that they are incapable of even considering anything else. And now with this idea of ever-expanding universe, which is happening everywhere except just where we are... People got Nobel prizes, defended their PhDs and built their academic careers on it, which means that they will defend it tooth and claw, all the way till the end. It will be another generation, after this one goes away, before an alternative view on things could even have a chance.

Israel Perez wrote on Sep. 25, 2012 @ 19:15 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva

Just to remind you that I have replied to you in my previous post above (Sep. 11, 2012 @ 17:14 GMT). I thought you may have overlooked it.

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Vasilyeva M.V. replied on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 00:12 GMT
Yes, Mr. Perez, my apologies! I did overlook your post. I am reading it now and will certainly reply.

report post as inappropriate

Viraj Fernando wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 04:58 GMT
Dear Vasiliyeva,

I read your essay with a great interest. I agree that role of geometry in physics has not been fully appreciated. However, my view differs from yours in that in place of empty space, what is there is the field (in the sense of Newton’s vacuum and Leibniz’ plenum). The field plays a role in every interaction without exception.

I too have taken a Geometric...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:42 GMT
Mr. Fernando,

That sounds very interesting. I will read your essay as soon as I get a free moment and will comment in your thread.

Take care!

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 26, 2012 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva

Sorry, if I am bothers you.

I watched very carefully your essay, but really did not find your final conclusion about the nature of space.

May also be due to my poor English skills, hope you will be directed.

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 M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:50 GMT
Mr. Hoang Cao Hai,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. Unlike your very advanced and far reaching work, I do not have ready answers about the concept as fundamental as space. How about you? What is space according to you? And what is your opinion about the reality of a 4th spatial dimension?

Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 01:03 GMT
Dear Dr. Perez,

very sorry for the delay. First I overlooked your post, and now I got lots of work... I very much value your feedback and want to continue our discussion. I will answer your questions as time permits and will post them in the end of the thread, so they won't get lost.

First, regarding the structure of space and what it is "made of", there is a concept in topology where a structure not only fully occupies a space but also defines it. That's how I mean it. And yes, like everything else, the structure of space is a particular expression of energy, just like charge is an expression of energy and so is mass, etc.

You say: "It seems that you haven't realized that by conceiving space with an internal structure as a fluid or strings you are contradicting the background independence of the general theory of relativity."

Not at all. In fact, the model I propose is just an extension of the geometry of GR. It suggests that the 3D space GR deals with is the surface of a 4D structure. It seems that our difficulty lies in accepting the reality of the 4th spatial dimension and Minkowski spacetime was a step in the right direction.

You say: "That space has this kind of internal structure means that space is not geometry as GR states."

-?? Geometry implies structure. Geometry is all about a structure. There is no geometry without a structure.

You say: "You: "The high energies at first instances after the BB correspond to higher-dimensionality of space." From where did you get that? The BB theory is based on GR and it assumes that since the beginning of time the universe is 3+1 dimensions, no matter how hot or cold the universe was."

Thank you for bringing this up. I did overlook this point, as we often do when an issue appears self-evident to us. And so I have a question to you in turn: what does BB have to say about how exactly the whole of the universe fit into a point and then a very small volume which then expanded? Or, where did that given 3D space come from in the first place, i.e. how does it appear out of nothing? And what constitutes the expansion of space, i.e. what is expanding and exactly how? And, not to forget, why 3D? Why not 4 or 5? Does BB have anything to say about all this? Not to my knowledge. The theory is completely silent on all these questions.

In contrast, my conceptual model gives answers to all these questions. Namely:

The universe fit into a point because it was compressed into an infinite number of dimensions. As it was cooling off, the number of dimensions diminished while the length of the remaining dimensions increased. This is what constitutes the expansion.

To illustrate this, I give you a simple example: you can take 8 cubes (edge length = 1 unit) and stack them in 3D so they make up a larger cube with the edge length of 2 units. You can arrange the same 8 cubes in 4D to make up a tesseract (a 4D cube) with the edge length of 1 unit. So, if the length of the edge stands for the lengh of a dimension, you just squeezed 3D space with dimension length of 2 units into a 4D space with the dimension length of 1 unit. The opposite process is when you take a tesseract and rearrange its volume in 3D. The size of the dimensions in 3D is twice as large. This explanation is as simple as it gets.

In the similar fashion, when the whole volume of the universe is compressed into an infinite number of dimensions, the length or size of those dimensions approaches a point. And as it cools off, the number of dimensions diminishes, i.e. the volume hidden in higher dimensions trickles down into the lower dimensions increasing their length. This constitutes the expansion.

I have to run now, but in the next post I will show why 3D. And I will certainly address all of your other questions. Thank you!

Israel Perez replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 00:57 GMT
Dear Vasilyeva (this is part 1)

Thanks for your reply. I will try to express myself so we understand each other as well as possible.

Before 1905 people believe that space was synonymous of utter emptiness, nothingness. This was known as the Newtonian space which was mathematically represented by a 3D Euclidean space. As we all know, Euclidean space is structureless, it is nothing...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 01:07 GMT
Part 2.

Now, let's talk about cosmology and the Big Bang (BB). At the beginning of the XX century most astronomers thought that space was euclidean (or Minkowskian) and that the universe was infinite in extension. This conception however lead us the so-called Olbers' paradox. How to get out of this puzzle? Well, as time went by astronomers started to estimate the velocity (through the red...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Israel Perez replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 01:14 GMT
Part 3

Thus, if I understand your view well, you are saying that space exists in itself as some kind of positive energy or massive fluid, i.e., as some sort of quantum vacuum or luminiferous aether (Lae). You say in your previous posts in reply to me: "That physics decreed 100 years ago that space was empty is in fact the topic of my essay, in which I argue that it was the wrong turn"....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

J.R. wrote on Sep. 28, 2012 @ 15:46 GMT
Dear M.V.

Well written essay

Aside from the seemingly obvious properties of space existing in three (XYZ) dimensions plus time as a possible fourth dimension, (I seek intrinsic mechanical properties) do you perceive space as being a compressible medium? J.R.

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear J.R.,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. You say "...plus time as a possible 4th dimension", but my model stands on the reality of the 4th spatial dimension at low energies of own own experience. -?

Regarding your question of compressibility, the answer is yes and no. I conceive of a basic unit of spacetime as a 3D volume, which is incompressible as such. However, you can pack these "bricks" by arranging them in higher dimensions and it is in this topological sense that space is compressed.

If you read my post addressed to Dr. Perez just above yours, I give a simple example of how a 3D volume can be packed into 4D, resulting in the decrease in the length of the dimensions. The same process can be repeated for 5D, 6D, etc, all the way to infinity. As the number of dimensions grows, their size (or length) decreases, approaching 0. The same process going in the opposite direction explains how space expands (i.e. as the number of dimensions decreases, the length of the remaining dimensions grows).

Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Sep. 29, 2012 @ 22:50 GMT
Dr. Perez,

here I continue our discussion and will show now how the model I propose explains "why 3D?"

As I stated in the reply to J.R. above, the basic unit of spacetime I propose is 3D. From topological point of view, 3D is the minimal volume that is preserved in all n-spaces where n > 2. I have shown in the example above how 3d volumes can be packed into 4D with the result that the volumes themselves are preserved, while the length of the dimensions decreases. That's how, in principle, you can pack the whole of the universe into what can amount to nearly a point, as the number of dimensions grows to infinity.

Please keep in mind that each n-space, in topological sense, has its own characteristics and properties. Mathematicians often overlook this and thus loose the appreciation of the role of topology in physics. Laymen too, usually make a mistake when starting learning 4D visualization, which they do by heavily relying on analogies, applying the relationships in 2D->3D to 3D->4D. Most people do not realize the crucial difference between 2D->3D and 3D->4D, and that is: you can pack 3D volumes into 4D, just as I showed on the example above, where all 8 cubes are aligned face to face and edge to edge, thus filling in the whole of the 4D volume, while their own 3D volume is preserved fully intact. The same is not true about 2D->3D. You can take an infinite number of 2D planes and no matter which way you stack them, they will still amount to exactly 0 3D volume. What 2D planes can do is to enclose a 3D volume and with the size of their area give an indication of its shape.

And so 3D is the basic unit of volume, in which all other n-volumes (n>2) can be expressed. It is in this sense that 3D can be viewed as a given, always present as a subspace of any other n-space.

Now, we have a dynamic, vibrating structure that is initially packed in infinite number of dimensions (corresponding to its high energy density) and so the question becomes, as it cools off and expands, at what number of dimensions it will settle. I claim it is 4D, because of the unique properties of this space.

4D contains the largest number of regular polytopes (a.k.a. platonic solids), which is 6, compare with 5 in 3D and 3 in all other n-spaces (n>2). This is important, because it speaks of the number of symmetries n-space permits. In addition, in space of an even number of dimensions rotation takes place around a point, a plane, or some other axis-space of an even number of dimensions, while in space of an odd number of dimensions the axis of a rotation is always of an odd number of dimensions. Thus 4D, unlike any other space, offers the maximum number of symmetries, which is important for a structure that seeks to harmonize the vibrations of its components.

True, this needs to be backed by a proper theorem. Perhaps it, or something similar, already exists. If not, it should be proven. Namely: a dynamic vibrating structure of N-dimensions will find its lowest energy state in 4D.

Assuming this is so, what we get is a hypersphere, which geometers call a 4-sphere and topologists, a 3-sphere. This differences in definitions may be confusion for a layman, which is why I use 'hypersphere'. Also, calling the object a 3-sphere, topologists are mainly concerned with its 3D surface, while I insist on considering the object as a whole.

Now, the surface of a hypersphere is 3-dimensional, each point of which is equidistant from its center, making this 3-space continuous and invariant in all 3 directions.

At low energies of our own experience, matter (stuff with intrinsic mass) is confined to the surface of this hypersphere, with nuclei sort of gliding just above it in the 4th empty dimension, supported by their electron clouds. The EM field is confined _entirely_ to this 3D surface, making it in effect a 3D display that "shows" what is attached to it (other details can be found in my essay).

To summarize, the word we perceive is 3D, because it is the surface of a 4D object (a hypersphere). It is the shape in which an N-dimensional dynamic vibrating structure found its lowest energy state. If 5D were a space corresponding to the lowest energy state, then we would be crawling on a 4D surface (in the 5th dimension). But we "crawl" on the 3D surface, in the 4th spatial dimension, aware only of this surface and seeing only what is attached to it.

In the next post I will address the questions you asked above and also demonstrate the advantage of this setup in various problems in physics.

J.R. wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 02:36 GMT
Dear M.V.

I re-read your essay and all of the posts above in an attempt to better understand your views. It is very refreshing and inspiring to see all the creative effort you have invested in this essay. It's appreciated!

In one post to Eckard you describe space as a dynamic fluid structure which coincides with my own opinion, except that I would use the term medium rather than structure, as structure seems to denote rigidity or immobility. Is the dynamic part.. energy contained within apace?, the passing of energy via EMR thru space?, or space itself posessed of inertial properties?, or something else?

In another post you say that you agree that waves do require a medium for propagation. In response to my post you say that you perceive 3-D space as incompressible. My question is "how is it possible for waves to propagate through an incompressible medium?" (not on the surface of)

About your idea of 4-D space representing the lowest stable energy state for space to exist in... very unique approach and seems to be a cosmological possibility, once the properties of space are better determined.

J.R.

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 12:06 GMT
J.R.,

You ask "Is the dynamic part.. energy contained within space?, the passing of energy via EMR thru space?, or space itself posessed of inertial properties?, or something else?"

It's all a matter of scale. At the very bottom of it I visualize it as a dynamic structure made of vibrating strings (which appear golden to my inner eye -?). This structure *defines* space. I.e. there is no Euclidean and no Minkowski and no Absolute space without it. Without space there is undifferentiated nothing unable to contain anything. Most people cannot conceive an absence of space and cannot conceive its structure without imagining some structure *in* space. But if they meditate on it for some time, this becomes doable.

You say, "My question is "how is it possible for waves to propagate through an incompressible medium?""

The structure vibrates. Just like atoms in a slab of steel vibrate. If you strike a slab of steel, it will resound and transverse waves will propagate through it. If you strike it hard enough, it will also wobble and undulate (which explains why "gravity" is the strongest force: it takes far more energy to make a steel slab wobble than to resound). But steel is not rigid enough in comparison to space. It is a well-known fact that the harder is the material, the faster the waves propagate through it. Space behaves like a super-rigid solid. That's why no 3D model can explain how matter moves through the 3D space fully occupied by this medium. Only 4D can, assuming that the additional spatial dimension is empty and does not contain this medium. For all we know, this empty dimension may be not structured, i.e. it may be the remnant of the Great Void of the singularity in which the universe was born. Since we are "crawling" on the 3D surface, what does it matter how many dimensions that emptiness has? Actually, come think of it, if the emptiness is the remnant of the Great Void, this could be the source of the energy that is pressing the nuclei into the surface (because they stick out) giving rise to mass (it's like some hard objects lying on a bed, covered by a heavy glass pane that presses them in).

And so the fact that the structure vibrates is crucial in this model. The vibrations is what propagates as quanta or "particles". There is no continuous waves... well, from a perspective of a certain scale, the waves may appear continuous, just as the surface of the structure appears continuous from even greater scale. But when you zoom in on it, you will see the "bricks" and the fact that waves propagate in quanta of underlying vibrations.

I am glad you made me think about "what it's made of" again... I imagine it now, from the POV of an intermediate scale, as an oily (-? I know) pliable yet very bouncy and stiff... like an oily liquid metal. Icy mercury? I really don't know. I don't think there is a material that could match it.

To me, space, its structure and its properties is the expression of energy. Just like mass is an expression of energy. And like everything else. Everything is made of the same stuff, starting with the structure of space.

J.R. wrote on Sep. 30, 2012 @ 16:54 GMT
Hello M.V.

Your response is appreciated and I find it enlightening.

I do not have an essay posted here, having only discovered this site in the last week, but am very excited to have discovered it and especially your essay. We have similar interests relating to space apparently, and perhaps more similarity in an approach to comprehending and articulating it.

I do not wish to monopolize or contaminate your forum with my ideas but would very much like to communicate more with you on this subject. May I contact you via the e-mail address you posted for someone else above?

J.R.

report post as inappropriate

m.v. vasilyeva replied on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 12:53 GMT
yes, sure, you can email me

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:17 GMT
Ms. Vasilyeva

Within the confine of how reality is manifest (ie science, not belief), there is only physical presence. Space is non existent. It is a conceptualisation of ‘not-physical presence’, and has two aspects: 1) the size and shape of any given physical presence, 2) the differentiation between any given two. In other words, physical reality is conceived of as being overlayed by a grid which enables the identification of relative spatial position. The points on the grid being a distance apart which equates to the smallest physical presence in reality. Then, as at any point in time, any given physical presence can be conceived as occupying a certain configuration of spatial points, and that can be compared to any other. Whether there are spatial positions which, at any given point in time, are not occupied by a physical presence, is an open question.

I have deliberately used the phrase physical presence, as there is an incorrect ontological tendency to view physical reality as comprising ‘something’, and then in addition postulate other forms of ‘something’ which are deemed to have physical effects, but no physical presence. But, by definition, anything which has any form of physical influence must have some form of physical presence.

The other important points in respect of the concept of space are:

-for spatial dimension, physical reality has half the number of possible directions that the smallest physical presence could travel from any given spatial point, not 3. The latter being the minimum number possible when reality is conceived at the highest level

-time is not a dimension, as the concept is concerned with the speed of change. And change is associated with how realities differ. It is not a feature of a reality, which can only exist in one physical form at a time.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 20:46 GMT
Hello, Mr. Reed! And welcome :)

Yours is a position, according to which I can classify people onto those who can conceive the absence of space and those tho can't. Clearly, you're in the second category. This is a position of someone who has never given space a thought and always has taken it for granted. Thus for you, it does not even exist as such, except maybe as wrappings for some...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
Ms Vasilyeva

“Thus for you, it does not even exist as such, except maybe as wrappings for some object or energies”

It is not a case of ‘for me’, neither is it ‘wrappings’, but what is experienceable (or proven to be potentially so). And physical reality comprises physically existent phenomena (probably of several different types), which have shape/size (ie a relative...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 00:09 GMT
Dr. Perez,

don't know if you saw my posts under your last ones -? They are sort of hidden.

____

Mr. Reed,

I decided not to wait for you and to go ahead and show that Minkowski spacetime is all about 4 spatial dimensions in time, not 3D + time, as it is touted. I claim that Minkowski model of space worked out so well for GR, because the underlying reality *is* 4D, just as I argue in my essay. For some reason people have difficulty with this simple notion.

That Minkowski spacetime is all about 4 spatial dimensions, in time, I will show on an analogy with a graph that plots the trajectory of a cannonball. That simple graph is also a spacetime, just as Minkowski model is, even though, of course, it lacks its sophistication.

In a cannonball graph, we have 2 spatial dimensions, X and Y. We dispense of the 3rd dimension for simplicity and on the grounds that our idealized cannonball follows a parabola on a plane. So, our graph represents the familiar 3D space: we have horizontal X and vertical Y, while the depth of Z is implied but dismissed for simplicity. Agreed?

Now, we add time to our model. For this we simply align the time axis with the X axis, remembering that X, first of all, stands for a spatial dimension. We could set time diagonally, at 45° to both X and Y, or at any other angle, or even align it with the Y axis, which would be less convenient for the application at hand. Instinctively, we align the time dimension with the X axis and also set its origin where the cannon stands. We also set its direction with the direction the cannon fires. Imagine if we set the time direction opposite from which the cannon fires? That would be very odd. Perhaps we still would be able to figure things out, but it is most natural to simply align the time axis with the X axis, in the direction where the cannonball is fired.

And so, in this simple graph what we have is a 2D representation of the underling 3D reality, and we aligned the time dimension with one of the 3 spatial dimensions. That's what makes our graph a spacetime. Just like Minkowski's.

Now we plot the trajectory of the cannonball. In line with Minkowski model, and just as people often picture it, instead of a simple parabola, we draw a fat, ugly line reminiscent of a giant ... in the sky. That's the worldline of our cannonball in spacetime.

I hope you noticed the uncanny similarity between our graph and Minkowski model. Can we call our model 2D + time? Both dimensions are actual, bona fide spatial dimensions (the 3rd is implied but dismissed for simplicity). The time dimension is not something extra. It is *not* an additional dimension. In our simple example, it is aligned with the X dimension. The fact that the time dimensions is aligned with it does not make the X dimension any less spatial.

In the same way, all 4 dimensions of Minkowski spacetime are bona fide spatial dimensions. Just like in our cannonball graph, the direction of time is selected, and it is done in the manner that makes sense and is convenient for the application at hand. Normally we align it with the direction of the movement, just as we did in the cannonball graph.

Certainly, Minkowski model is a sophisticated mathematical tool, unlike our simple graph. It has built in provisions, one of them to account for the finite speed of light, which is irrelevant for our cannonball application. Perhaps it is the complexity and sophistication of the Minkowski model that veiled the plain fact that it *is* set in 4 *spatial* dimensions. But in principle it is the same as our graph, which has 2 spatial dimensions X and Y, while the time dimension is aligned with X. In exactly the same way, Minkowski spacetime has 4 spatial dimensions, with the time dimension chosen and set at convenience.

And now the moral of this exercise: Minkowski spacetime is all about 4 spatial dimensions. That's why it worked out so well in GR. Because the underlying reality *is* 4D. GR describes the curvature of the 3D surface of a 4D object, IN FOUR SPATIAL DIMENSIONS. Minkowski camouflaged this fact by claiming that the 4th dimension is time, perhaps to make the idea of the 4D model of space more palatable for himself and others.

I present this for your consideration as yet another evidence of the reality of the 4th spatial dimension and welcome your comments.

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 08:02 GMT
Ms Vasilyeva

I have commented on spatial dimension above.

The incorrect modelling of time as a dimension (or variable) of physical reality (Minkowski), stems from Poincaré and his flawed concept of simultaneity (as repeated in the first section of Einstein 1905). [This variable then became a surrogate for the originally postulated variable, which was dimension alteration. Whether...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 08:16 GMT
Ms Vasilyeva

I thought it might be useful to just clarify why, irrespective of number, there is no dimension of time in reality.

There are two knowns: 1) existence is independent of sensory detection, 2) difference occurs. So physical existence is a sequence, ie something occurs, then re-occurs, differently, and so on. And within any given sequence, only one physically existent state (ie a reality) can occur at a time, because for the successor to exist its predecessor must cease. That is, no form of change can be involved in whatever constitutes a physically existent state.

Only physically existent states exist. Comparison of these states, either within or between, any given sequence, reveals difference. So change is associated with how realities differ, it is not existent and is not a feature of a reality. Change involves: 1) substance (ie what changed), 2) order (ie the sequence of differences), 3) frequency (ie the rate at which change occurred). The latter being established by comparing the number of changes, irrespective of type, that occurred over the same duration, which could involve any sequence (including the same sequence), and have either occurred concurrently, or otherwise. This is timing.

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 16:47 GMT
Mr. Reed,

You wrote, " Whether there are 'areas' of physical reality which have no physical presence whatsoever in them, ie space is existent, needs proving. "

and " Only physically existent states exist. "

That's an interesting position. For you, space does not really exist until proven. To me, this represents an opinion vastly different from mine. I see space as the primary...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:01 GMT
Anon(? M.V. V.)

“For you, space does not really exist until proven”

For me, or indeed anyone else involved in science, nothing exists until proven. We certainly know of the existence of a variety of ‘stuff’ (technical word!). But the concept of space, in the sense of ‘nothing’, as opposed to a fundamentally different form of ‘stuff’, implies the existence of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 04:08 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 [equation] and [equation] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [equation] of points. After it anyone give you [equation] of points so you have [equation] of points and [equation] is the common quantity of the people which gave...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

J.R. wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:06 GMT
To All

Time is a term created by mankind to gauge relative motion. As a stand alone entity it is non existent, and being non existent, cannot exist in any dimension other than an imaginary one. Spacetime is a term created to account for the fact that any motion requires space to transpire. On a cosmic scale the clock can be said to be the relative motion of everything in the universe. On a...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 06:57 GMT
J.R

Time, or more precisely, timing, guages relative speed of change, by comparing the number thereof in different sequences irrespective of type, ie motion is just one form of change. Unless one could ultimately express every change in terms of motion, but that just brings it back to the same logical point anyway.

But you are correct to say it is non-existent and is not a dimension...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT
Dr. Perez,

_________________

Mr. Reed,

yes, the anon above is me, MV. Sometimes the sys looses the id. I was logged in, as I am now.

Re our discussion, we appear to have irreconcilable differences. You deny the existence of space, but then what do you measure between the 'stuff'?

To my plain and obvious 'There is no time without change' you reply, " Not so. There is no physical existence without change. Time is just the duration unit.... It does not exist. "

What's duration? See, to me it is the duration that does not exist. It is a series of changes in some system with which you measure "duration" of another. So, all that exists really, are some changes, and at the lowest level, where there is nothing to compare them with, you can't tell how long it is between each change. You can only register the fact that a change took place.

And so on and so forth. There are such vast differences in our appreciation of reality that I do not see a point in continuing our discussion. You will never convince me of your POV, because it is very different from where I stand. We are all entitled to our own views; what's forbidden is to impose them forcefully on others.

Good luck with the competition and take care!

Geoffrey Haselhurst wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 21:10 GMT
Dear Ms. Vasilyeva,

I enjoyed your essay and thought the first half was quite brilliant. However, I am convinced there is a more simple explanation than your view of 4D space.

"The important thing is that we get a dynamic, vibrating structure that defines space."

The simple solution is that 3D space exists, it has complex plane waves flowing through it in all directions, thus time is really this wave motion of space.

From this foundation, and the use of complex quaternion wave equations to represent these plane waves, you find you can deduce the central equations of modern physics.

I hope you will read my essay on this and discuss this with me - you have a fine mind for this kind of work.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1548

Also, Declan Traill's essay shows that Einstein's relativity can be deduced in this Euclidean 3D space given the velocity of light changes with the energy density of space. See;

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1363

Best wishes,

Geoff

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 23:01 GMT
Mr. Haselhurst,

thank you for your kind comments. I will read your essay and comment in your thread, but having just checked out the abstract, I can already tell that you're right about the 3D in which the *real* plane waves propagate. This is completely in accord with the 4D model of space I propose, according to which, the matter (stuff with intrinsic mass) "surfs" these waves in the 4th dimension (the waves completely occupy the visible 3D, which is the *surface* of a 4D object).

Regarding time, there is a post above, of Oct. 3, 2012 @ 00:09 GMT, where I show that Minkowski spacetime is set in 4 bona fide spatial dimensions, not 3D + time as it is touted. I present it as yet another evidence that our underlying reality *is* 4D.

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
IS IT NOT QUITE AN IRONY THAT THE ESSAY THAT IS UNBEATABLY ESTABLISHED AS NO.1 (WITH 361 RATINGS AND AVERAGE SCORE 8.7)IN PUBLIC RATINGS IS ALSO THE VERY LAST IN THE COMMUNITY RATINGS?

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 21:46 GMT
MV

Wonderful first part to your essay. See Richard Kingsley-Nixeys essay for where matter stops and space begins, (Shock section from the 'Cluster' probes Fig.2.) as Maxwells near far field term 'TZ'. These form the frame boundary 'membranes' as real physical dynamic boundary condition, implementing 'fluid dynamic coupling' of frames by scattering at local c each side.

I think your essay lost touch with underlying reality with branes and extra dimensions. However that may be a useful language to adapt to help recruit string theorists to the bus trip back down to a hard reality. There are other analogies to strings. I did not read the last parts in detail (speed reading and time have limits). A pretty good score due anyway. Your response so far?

(I always try to read the essays of hose who comment) I hope you read my essay again, and other papers.

Why no name? I'm intrigued.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 23:12 GMT
Peter, congratulations on making the list of finalists! I replied in your thread, since that's where all the action is now.

Jeff Baugher wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 23:57 GMT
Ms. Vasileyva,

I received your kind words about my essay, and decided to try putting up a Powerpoint to help explain it. I included in towards the end the equation I derived for when gravity becomes repulsive but haven't yet posted what I think about the perfect fluid tensor.

You stated "Is there a way to ruffly estimate this radius? I have a visual approach to physics and understand GR as if it describes the curvature of a 3D hypersurface of a hypersphere, similar to a 2D surface of water in the ocean, with the troughs of the waves corresponding to attractive gravity and the crests, repulsive. To paraphrase the saying, my geometrical approach (in 4D) states that "what curves in must eventually curve out", which implies that the repulsive aspect of gravity manifests itself in intergalactic voids, thus explaining why they are empty. In this regard, I would very much appreciate your feedback on my essay ( fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1547 )"

If I were to follow your analogy (since I think visually also) I would say that matter itself are also troughs in your ocean traveling as waves. These depressions always seek symmetry but when they are within a specific radius of another wave, their depressions interfere (superposition) causing a distortion of the height between them than what is on the other sides. Seeking symmetry, they move towards each other. If however, they are outside this specific radius then they would apparently seek the farthest distance possible from each other. Least that is the way it looks to me now :). So I would view your intergalactic voids as random regions outside this radius that does repulse matter since matter should randomly clump up.

Let me know what you think of the Powerpoint. Hoping I haven't goofed an equation.

Thanks

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 6, 2012 @ 05:29 GMT
Dear Jeff,

thank you for the equation but... I am embarrassed to admit that I don't have the Powerpoint. I downloaded your file, but need to find a legit site to download the program to open it...

I am very excited that you apparently agree with my vision, that gravity becomes repulsive at large distances, exactly how you described in your post here. And exactly how you worded it even... that's what I saw in my mind years ago, because I visualized the universe as a whole and when you do that, you see right away that it simply "wants" to balance. And if so, it would mean that matter will clump up in some places, but will "clump-out" in others. But the underlying process in both cases is the same. I am dying to look at your equation... Do you have it in other format but Powerpoint?

Thank you so much and congrats on having the ratings over. Now I feel like I can relax and really appreciate essays. I counted and found that I rated only 25 and read maybe 30. There are so many good essays that I missed! I want to catch up now.

J.R. wrote on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 03:48 GMT
Dear M.V.

I tried contacting you via your private e-mail about a week ago and didn't receive any acknowledgement. I feel it might prove interesting and mutually beneficial if you can respond. Will try again. Thanks

J.R.

e-mail name... rojaro45

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Oct. 7, 2012 @ 04:33 GMT
Why are you dating Russian girls?

report post as inappropriate

Author M. V. Vasilyeva replied on Oct. 9, 2012 @ 19:26 GMT
Sorry, JR, I have not checked the mail in a while. Had to take a brake from all this physics. And then there was a cluster of birthdays all around.

Anon, lol what, you have something against Russian girls?

Michael Haddid wrote on Nov. 12, 2012 @ 13:19 GMT
Very recently there have been unexpected advances in understanding dark energy. In fact if the claim of the Egyptian Scientist M. S. El Naschie is correct, then there is no more a mystery regarding dark energy. El Naschie’s solution is disarmingly simple and was presented at two conferences which were almost entirely devoted to his work. The first was held in Bibliotheca Alexandrina early...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo wrote on Aug. 18, 2013 @ 10:47 GMT
Hello Ms Vasilyeva,

Going through past essays. I am a new participant on the FQXi forum. I came across something similar to my proposal for digital motion in your essay, "...we can propose that the main organizing principle of the structure is its propensity to keep as even and regular as possible. Applied to each contiguous segment of space, this principle becomes the source of all movement: any deformation introduced into the structure locally is immediately expelled; the same happens in the next segment, then the next, and so on, like in a game of hot potato. A deformation is expelled into the direction that gives, which in a perfectly balanced structure is opposite from where it comes". I agree. I propose the principle as conservation of displacement, a vector quantity. Like most action-reaction, a vector quantity is usually conserved.

Best regards,

Akinbo

report post as inappropriate