If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

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.

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*

read/discuss • winners

**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.

read/discuss • winners

**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

read/discuss • winners

**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*

read/discuss • winners

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**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*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Peter Jackson**: *on* 4/6/17 at 13:38pm UTC, wrote basudeba, Thanks for your comments on my essay. You didn't respond as you...

**Satyavarapu Gupta**: *on* 4/3/17 at 22:33pm UTC, wrote Dear basudeba mishra ji, I could not get time to reply your post, I am...

**Satyavarapu Gupta**: *on* 4/3/17 at 22:21pm UTC, wrote Dear basudeba mishra ji, Thank you for your nice complements and blessings...

**James Hoover**: *on* 4/3/17 at 16:16pm UTC, wrote Basudeba, Thank you for your kind words and for reading my essay. Jim

**basudeba mishra**: *on* 4/3/17 at 12:24pm UTC, wrote Dear Sir, (In my essay) What is a dimension? If you define it precisely...

**Janko Kokosar**: *on* 4/2/17 at 19:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba Mishra You write in your essay something what I disagree,but...

**George Kirakosyan**: *on* 4/2/17 at 5:05am UTC, wrote Many thanks dear basudeba, for your kindly words (in my page) and mostly,...

**James Hoover**: *on* 3/26/17 at 22:17pm UTC, wrote Basudeba, Thinking of Time as a 4th dimension is useful mathematically,...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "It's difficult for the acrobats to see each other. I want a 3rd party..."
*in* Bonus Koan: Distant...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Thinking observers are going to notice their own and the other's arms..."
*in* Bonus Koan: Distant...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..."
*in* Measuring Free Will: Ian...

**andrea gonzalez**: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..."
*in* Memory, Causality and...

**Ian Durham**: "Well, Lorraine, if you insist on seeing it that way, I doubt anything I say..."
*in* Measuring Free Will: Ian...

**Joe Fisher**: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..."
*in* First Things First: The...

**Poker Online**: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/"
*in* Downward causation:...

**Enquire us**: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..."
*in* Agency in the Physical...

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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

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.

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

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.

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

August 24, 2019

CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]

TOPIC: PHYSICAL MATHEMATICS - EXPLAINING THE PHYSICS OF TEN DIMENSIONS by basudeba mishra [refresh]

TOPIC: PHYSICAL MATHEMATICS - EXPLAINING THE PHYSICS OF TEN DIMENSIONS by basudeba mishra [refresh]

The goal of physics is to analyze and understand natural phenomena of the universe - properties of matter, energy, their interaction, and consciousness/observer. Random occurrences are not encountered by chance wandering. There is a causal law putting restrictions on these. The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality. The validity of a mathematical statement rests with its logical consistency. Mathematical laws of dynamics can be valid physical statements, as long as they correspond to reality. Dynamics is more than action of forces moment by moment or calculated over the particle’s entire path throughout time. The changeover from LHS to RHS in an equation is not automatic. The sign = or → is not an arithmetic total, but signifies special conditions like dynamical variables or transition states, etc. String theories require 26 or 11 dimensions. M-theory requires 10 dimensions. But scientists have no idea about what these mathematical dimensions are. The strings are said to be excitations in hyperspace in 26 or 11 dimensions of a particle with zero mass and two units of spin. The extra dimensions are thought to be compactified or curled up into tiny pockets inside observable space. The particular vibrations of the strings within a multidimensional hyperspace are thought to correspond to particles that form the basis of all matter and energy. No one knows whether such hyperspace or strings or compactified dimensions exist. Time has come to switch over to physical mathematics. We will show the 10 dimensions in observable space.

seeker for truth.

Basudeba,

You have 9 pages of build-up followed by 6 points and 4 lines. All of which fit into 3 dimensions.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

You have 9 pages of build-up followed by 6 points and 4 lines. All of which fit into 3 dimensions.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

The so-called build up was necessary to remove the misconceptions that has developed for over a Century. It is so deep grained that ALL scientists use extra dimensions without knowing what they are talking about. Hence it was necessary to prove the existing notions wrong.

We would have appreciated a critical comment from you.

Regards,

basudeba

The so-called build up was necessary to remove the misconceptions that has developed for over a Century. It is so deep grained that ALL scientists use extra dimensions without knowing what they are talking about. Hence it was necessary to prove the existing notions wrong.

We would have appreciated a critical comment from you.

Regards,

basudeba

Basudeba,

I would have been delighted to give an objective comment. Unfortunately, your understanding of the word "dimension" is so far removed from mine that we are not even speaking the same language. You present 3 dimensions, not 10. The only thing that we agree upon is that time is not a dimension.

I will simply ask you two questions.

1. Does your model allow you to make any testable predictions?

2. Does your model allow you to make any useful calculations?

BTW, I have not scored your essay yet.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

I would have been delighted to give an objective comment. Unfortunately, your understanding of the word "dimension" is so far removed from mine that we are not even speaking the same language. You present 3 dimensions, not 10. The only thing that we agree upon is that time is not a dimension.

I will simply ask you two questions.

1. Does your model allow you to make any testable predictions?

2. Does your model allow you to make any useful calculations?

BTW, I have not scored your essay yet.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

You may differ from our views on Dimension, but as you have seen the built-up of 8 pages was only to refute all modern notions on dimension including yours. So at least you could have defended your notion of extra-dimensions. Had we not refuted your notion first, you would have simply refuted our views. But now we find that you do not want to be questioned on your views. Please defend your view on dimension that we have proved wrong before attacking our view.

Regarding your points whether does our model make testable predictions, we clarify that a model is an evidence-based representation of something that is either too difficult or impossible to display directly. Here the model itself is the evidence, which can be displayed. You can apply it directly to measure the dimension of any object and verify its authenticity. This also replies your other point.

Regards,

basudeba

You may differ from our views on Dimension, but as you have seen the built-up of 8 pages was only to refute all modern notions on dimension including yours. So at least you could have defended your notion of extra-dimensions. Had we not refuted your notion first, you would have simply refuted our views. But now we find that you do not want to be questioned on your views. Please defend your view on dimension that we have proved wrong before attacking our view.

Regarding your points whether does our model make testable predictions, we clarify that a model is an evidence-based representation of something that is either too difficult or impossible to display directly. Here the model itself is the evidence, which can be displayed. You can apply it directly to measure the dimension of any object and verify its authenticity. This also replies your other point.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Seeker for truth, basudeba,

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Respected Sir,

Kindly read the paper carefully before commenting. We have taken 8 pages to demolish the modern concept of dimension including your concept of "one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension". Dimension cannot be infinite. Hence kindly refute our reasoning and prove your statement before dismissing it outright.

We never anticipated better marks from you and you could have voted us zero. But kindly consider how long general public will be fooled by some fancy concepts like extra-dimensions? After all science is all about whatever exists in Nature and its mechanism.

Regards,

basudeba

Kindly read the paper carefully before commenting. We have taken 8 pages to demolish the modern concept of dimension including your concept of "one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension". Dimension cannot be infinite. Hence kindly refute our reasoning and prove your statement before dismissing it outright.

We never anticipated better marks from you and you could have voted us zero. But kindly consider how long general public will be fooled by some fancy concepts like extra-dimensions? After all science is all about whatever exists in Nature and its mechanism.

Regards,

basudeba

basudeba,

If we challenge fundamental assumptions and propose unfamiliar replacements, however better, we are heretics and rejected a priori. That's the way we humans employ our brains: Rational analysis is too hard work when it conflicts with comfortable assumptions long and well embedded.

I found your essay well constructed, well argued, 'original' (apart from a few thousand...

view entire post

If we challenge fundamental assumptions and propose unfamiliar replacements, however better, we are heretics and rejected a priori. That's the way we humans employ our brains: Rational analysis is too hard work when it conflicts with comfortable assumptions long and well embedded.

I found your essay well constructed, well argued, 'original' (apart from a few thousand...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for not only reading, but also carefully applying your mind to the paper. These two are rare commodities now. It is the age of big data and less analysis, with reductionism and sensationalization compounding the problem to mislead. As you have rightly pointed out, we are treated as a heretic and often rejected. The few remarks above show that. They did not...

view entire post

Thank you very much for not only reading, but also carefully applying your mind to the paper. These two are rare commodities now. It is the age of big data and less analysis, with reductionism and sensationalization compounding the problem to mislead. As you have rightly pointed out, we are treated as a heretic and often rejected. The few remarks above show that. They did not...

view entire post

basudeba

T'was I! (-logged out).

Thanks for your interesting response. There's one major difference with the astronomical accretion and Active Galactic Nucleus (observed) dynamics leading to quasar jets (and a pattern reproduced at large scale in the CMB.; It is that speed significantly INCREASES towards the centre. The more mass the faster it spins. Like a ballerina or ice skater who speeds up by pulling in her arms. The toroid spin and contraflow jets are what rips apart and re-ionizes the matter (all that is actual discovery not theory).

The paper analysing the cosequences is here;

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or

http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf or

www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_

WITH_BARS

But I think even more important now is the exposure of a simple Classical QM derivation in my essay, addressing the topic directly but plus a whole lot more!

There's also a video; Vimeo; Classic QM

I agree with your 'cartel' suggestion. I got hit with three '1's! early on before people even had a chance to read it! I see you may have had some too. Your essay deserves far better and my score for it is going on now. I hope you'll read, comment and do the same for mine.

Very best of luck.

Peter (Jackson)

report post as inappropriate

T'was I! (-logged out).

Thanks for your interesting response. There's one major difference with the astronomical accretion and Active Galactic Nucleus (observed) dynamics leading to quasar jets (and a pattern reproduced at large scale in the CMB.; It is that speed significantly INCREASES towards the centre. The more mass the faster it spins. Like a ballerina or ice skater who speeds up by pulling in her arms. The toroid spin and contraflow jets are what rips apart and re-ionizes the matter (all that is actual discovery not theory).

The paper analysing the cosequences is here;

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or

http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf or

www.academia.edu/6655261/A_CYCLIC_MODEL_OF_GALAXY_EVOLUTION_

WITH_BARS

But I think even more important now is the exposure of a simple Classical QM derivation in my essay, addressing the topic directly but plus a whole lot more!

There's also a video; Vimeo; Classic QM

I agree with your 'cartel' suggestion. I got hit with three '1's! early on before people even had a chance to read it! I see you may have had some too. Your essay deserves far better and my score for it is going on now. I hope you'll read, comment and do the same for mine.

Very best of luck.

Peter (Jackson)

report post as inappropriate

Dear basudeba mishra ji,

Good essay on Physical Mathematics for the space of ten dimensions bringing in the old traditional Indian dimensions …

You have written nicely…

1. “Data is not synonymous with knowledge. Knowledge is the concepts stored in memory. By combining lots of data, we generate something big and different….”

2. “Already physics is struggling with misguided concepts like extra-dimensions, gravitons, strings, Axions, bare mass, bare charge, etc”

3. “What is the basic difference between quantum physics and classical physics? Notices of the American Mathematical Society Volume 52, Number 9 published a paper which shows that the theory of dynamical systems used to design trajectories of space flights and the theory of transition states in chemical reactions share the same set of mathematic”

4. “This makes space-time four-dimensional. It shows that we can specify time using a number. An object remain invariant under mutual transformation of the dimensions: like rotating length to breadth or height, even though the measured value of the new axes change. Time does not fulfill these criteria”

Have a look at my essay also…

Best wishes…………….

=snp. gupta

report post as inappropriate

Good essay on Physical Mathematics for the space of ten dimensions bringing in the old traditional Indian dimensions …

You have written nicely…

1. “Data is not synonymous with knowledge. Knowledge is the concepts stored in memory. By combining lots of data, we generate something big and different….”

2. “Already physics is struggling with misguided concepts like extra-dimensions, gravitons, strings, Axions, bare mass, bare charge, etc”

3. “What is the basic difference between quantum physics and classical physics? Notices of the American Mathematical Society Volume 52, Number 9 published a paper which shows that the theory of dynamical systems used to design trajectories of space flights and the theory of transition states in chemical reactions share the same set of mathematic”

4. “This makes space-time four-dimensional. It shows that we can specify time using a number. An object remain invariant under mutual transformation of the dimensions: like rotating length to breadth or height, even though the measured value of the new axes change. Time does not fulfill these criteria”

Have a look at my essay also…

Best wishes…………….

=snp. gupta

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

We were thinking of studying your essay, but could not make time as we were frequently going out. Today also we are going out. Next week we will comment on your essay.

There is a cartel here who vote for each other. In any case, since we are going against the main stream, we invite hostility. But we are not here to win any prizes. We want to stand against the mad rush to fictionalize physics. You might have noticed we took 8 pages to demolish the modern concepts. But no one is talking about that.

Let us hope for the best.

Regards,

basudeba

We were thinking of studying your essay, but could not make time as we were frequently going out. Today also we are going out. Next week we will comment on your essay.

There is a cartel here who vote for each other. In any case, since we are going against the main stream, we invite hostility. But we are not here to win any prizes. We want to stand against the mad rush to fictionalize physics. You might have noticed we took 8 pages to demolish the modern concepts. But no one is talking about that.

Let us hope for the best.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear basudeba mishra ji,

I could not get time to reply your post, I am sorry for the late . you are exactly correct. I fully accept and support your esteemed words……

“There is a cartel here who vote for each other. In any case, since we are going against the main stream, we invite hostility. But we are not here to win any prizes. We want to stand against the mad rush to fictionalize physics. You might have noticed we took 8 pages to demolish the modern concepts. But no one is talking about that……….” I fully agree with you.

Let us hope for the best.

Best Regards,

=snp

report post as inappropriate

I could not get time to reply your post, I am sorry for the late . you are exactly correct. I fully accept and support your esteemed words……

“There is a cartel here who vote for each other. In any case, since we are going against the main stream, we invite hostility. But we are not here to win any prizes. We want to stand against the mad rush to fictionalize physics. You might have noticed we took 8 pages to demolish the modern concepts. But no one is talking about that……….” I fully agree with you.

Let us hope for the best.

Best Regards,

=snp

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeba,

Very interesting, profound essay and important ideas on the way to the truth. I agree with you: «Dimension is an existential description.»

In basic science crisis of understanding, crisis of representation and interpretation. An ontological standard basification of knowledge is necessary to introduce with the empirical standard in fundamental physics.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Very interesting, profound essay and important ideas on the way to the truth. I agree with you: «Dimension is an existential description.»

In basic science crisis of understanding, crisis of representation and interpretation. An ontological standard basification of knowledge is necessary to introduce with the empirical standard in fundamental physics.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much. There is a dire need to strongly resist fictionalization of physics. Hence our ideas are directed towards proving some of the modern concepts as wrong and explain it using physical mathematics instead of flowing with the tide of mathematical fiction in the name of physics.

We were out of station and returned today. We will go through your essay and comment soon.

Regards,

basudeba

Thank you very much. There is a dire need to strongly resist fictionalization of physics. Hence our ideas are directed towards proving some of the modern concepts as wrong and explain it using physical mathematics instead of flowing with the tide of mathematical fiction in the name of physics.

We were out of station and returned today. We will go through your essay and comment soon.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Mishra,

Thank you for your interesting and well written essay. I have also thought that the fundamental assumptions behind the idea of extra "spatial" dimensions might be questionable. Unfortunately, I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician and so, can't really make specific comparisons. However, I appreciate the new perspective you have suggested. Perhaps you'll find time to read and comment on my own essay. Also, I would appreciate a reference source for the final 10 conditions/characteristics(?) that you list at the end of your work.

Good Luck,

Willam Ekeson

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your interesting and well written essay. I have also thought that the fundamental assumptions behind the idea of extra "spatial" dimensions might be questionable. Unfortunately, I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician and so, can't really make specific comparisons. However, I appreciate the new perspective you have suggested. Perhaps you'll find time to read and comment on my own essay. Also, I would appreciate a reference source for the final 10 conditions/characteristics(?) that you list at the end of your work.

Good Luck,

Willam Ekeson

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your encouraging comments. There is a dire need to strongly resist fictionalization of physics. Hence our ideas are directed towards proving some of the modern concepts as wrong and explain it using physical mathematics instead of flowing with the tide of mathematical fiction in the name of physics.

The ideas contained in this post are not new, but thousands of years old. We had given the references in the bibliography. Prashastapaada of yore in his book COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTIES OF MATTER (PADAARTHA DHARMA SAMGRAHA)written in Sanskrit, had described these in Dik Prakarana based on an ancient treatise by Kanaada. These books might have been translated into English.

Regards,

basudeba

Thanks for your encouraging comments. There is a dire need to strongly resist fictionalization of physics. Hence our ideas are directed towards proving some of the modern concepts as wrong and explain it using physical mathematics instead of flowing with the tide of mathematical fiction in the name of physics.

The ideas contained in this post are not new, but thousands of years old. We had given the references in the bibliography. Prashastapaada of yore in his book COMPENDIUM OF PROPERTIES OF MATTER (PADAARTHA DHARMA SAMGRAHA)written in Sanskrit, had described these in Dik Prakarana based on an ancient treatise by Kanaada. These books might have been translated into English.

Regards,

basudeba

Hi dear Basudeba,

I remember you from early contest as a like minded! Now I will study your essay and I hope my work also may deserve to your kindly attention. Then we can tell each other our impressions and opinions. I hope on your response

Regards

report post as inappropriate

I remember you from early contest as a like minded! Now I will study your essay and I hope my work also may deserve to your kindly attention. Then we can tell each other our impressions and opinions. I hope on your response

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Dear basudeba,

I have read your essay and I find there many interesting to me assertions and definitions that are significantly and these are acceptable for me also. I can say that you are inclined to realistic thinking, which I see mandatory in the natural science.

Meantime I must to recognize that some of your conclusions and assertions remained not fully understandable for me. It maybe, because I am not so well with some sections of math.

However, your study on the significance of physical units, it is close to me generally, as I have touched on this matter somewhat in mine work (that I hope you can read and evaluate). That is why I can say that your essay are significant and it deserves a support! I hope hearing you in my site.

My good wishes!

report post as inappropriate

I have read your essay and I find there many interesting to me assertions and definitions that are significantly and these are acceptable for me also. I can say that you are inclined to realistic thinking, which I see mandatory in the natural science.

Meantime I must to recognize that some of your conclusions and assertions remained not fully understandable for me. It maybe, because I am not so well with some sections of math.

However, your study on the significance of physical units, it is close to me generally, as I have touched on this matter somewhat in mine work (that I hope you can read and evaluate). That is why I can say that your essay are significant and it deserves a support! I hope hearing you in my site.

My good wishes!

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeb,

I see that your approach is vastly different from mine. Yet, I kept noticing that your expressions and statements made good sense at places. For example, how you argued against reductionism, and why mathematics does not tell us all about things that are knowable.

When you say, "Concepts are expressed in a language", did you mean a kind of language developed by humanity,...

view entire post

I see that your approach is vastly different from mine. Yet, I kept noticing that your expressions and statements made good sense at places. For example, how you argued against reductionism, and why mathematics does not tell us all about things that are knowable.

When you say, "Concepts are expressed in a language", did you mean a kind of language developed by humanity,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your comments. In our paper, we have defined Language as the transposition of some information/command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system. Thus, language here is not that only developed by humanity, or but also it includes a certain kind of universal language. Regarding what kind of language it could be, there is plenty of literature (though few read it...

view entire post

Thanks for your comments. In our paper, we have defined Language as the transposition of some information/command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system. Thus, language here is not that only developed by humanity, or but also it includes a certain kind of universal language. Regarding what kind of language it could be, there is plenty of literature (though few read it...

view entire post

Dear Basudeba,

I perused your explanations, and I offer the following remarks.

You say, "we have defined Language as the transposition of some information / command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system". So, I gather that for "transposition of information" to occur, a mind or a CPU is needed. But then mind already has a language to sense and express. No, I did not mean...

view entire post

I perused your explanations, and I offer the following remarks.

You say, "we have defined Language as the transposition of some information / command on the mind/CPU of another person/operating system". So, I gather that for "transposition of information" to occur, a mind or a CPU is needed. But then mind already has a language to sense and express. No, I did not mean...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

There is no contradiction between our views. When we talk about mind, we mean a mechanical function as has been mentioned in our ancient texts. We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind...

view entire post

There is no contradiction between our views. When we talk about mind, we mean a mechanical function as has been mentioned in our ancient texts. We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind...

view entire post

Dear Basudeba,

I can see that you are extremely passionate about your views, and you make good efforts to put forward supportive arguments. I can also see that your main intention here is to bring your views to light, which you feel to be right, than just winning the competition. Having said that let me place the counter rationality, and again, I must confess, my arguments are limited to my...

view entire post

I can see that you are extremely passionate about your views, and you make good efforts to put forward supportive arguments. I can also see that your main intention here is to bring your views to light, which you feel to be right, than just winning the competition. Having said that let me place the counter rationality, and again, I must confess, my arguments are limited to my...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeb,

You have some interesting thoughts, a number of which I agree with, including that theories include concepts invoking (human) language and mathematical equations cannot, by themselves, be the theory. I also agree that 'time' cannot be a physical dimension.

There are a few places where I am not clear on your use of terms. In general you seem to use mathematical terms as physicists tend to, rather than mathematicians. In so doing, I am not sure you have entirely separated mathematical concepts from your physical ones, as you appear to conflate a mathematical continuum with a physical one. A mathematical continuum (e.g a dimension) can be infinitely divided and is not a sequence of points, since any point does not have an identifiable 'next' point (since there are always an infinity of points between any two).

This one difference means the universe (and any dimension of it) would need to be infinitely divideable to match the mathematical concept and should indicate that mathematics and physical reality are not likely to ever match exactly.

I agree that we need to take a different path and perspective in order to understand reality - and that the same objects can look very different from different perspectives.

Let me suggest a different direction: Do physical objects extend spatially in scale? Are physical objects only comprised of the smallest particles or do they have an existence at multiple scales? If they exist at multiple scales, isn't this an extension mutually perpendicular to our standard three dimensions? If they only exist at the smallest particles, how do we explain our visual and tactile senses that portray objects primarily at 'our' scale?

Best to you and your essay,

Don

report post as inappropriate

You have some interesting thoughts, a number of which I agree with, including that theories include concepts invoking (human) language and mathematical equations cannot, by themselves, be the theory. I also agree that 'time' cannot be a physical dimension.

There are a few places where I am not clear on your use of terms. In general you seem to use mathematical terms as physicists tend to, rather than mathematicians. In so doing, I am not sure you have entirely separated mathematical concepts from your physical ones, as you appear to conflate a mathematical continuum with a physical one. A mathematical continuum (e.g a dimension) can be infinitely divided and is not a sequence of points, since any point does not have an identifiable 'next' point (since there are always an infinity of points between any two).

This one difference means the universe (and any dimension of it) would need to be infinitely divideable to match the mathematical concept and should indicate that mathematics and physical reality are not likely to ever match exactly.

I agree that we need to take a different path and perspective in order to understand reality - and that the same objects can look very different from different perspectives.

Let me suggest a different direction: Do physical objects extend spatially in scale? Are physical objects only comprised of the smallest particles or do they have an existence at multiple scales? If they exist at multiple scales, isn't this an extension mutually perpendicular to our standard three dimensions? If they only exist at the smallest particles, how do we explain our visual and tactile senses that portray objects primarily at 'our' scale?

Best to you and your essay,

Don

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for the appreciation.

The paper had two parts: pleading for switch over to Physical Mathematics from Mathematical Physics and as an example demolish the myth of extra-dimensions. Incidentally, you can view the paper from the perspective of Clifford Algebra also.

You have raised some very important points and we would like to give a detailed reply. Since we are on the move for a week, we will give a detailed reply extending your arguments next week. We will also go through your essay and comment then.

Regards,

basudeba

Thank you very much for the appreciation.

The paper had two parts: pleading for switch over to Physical Mathematics from Mathematical Physics and as an example demolish the myth of extra-dimensions. Incidentally, you can view the paper from the perspective of Clifford Algebra also.

You have raised some very important points and we would like to give a detailed reply. Since we are on the move for a week, we will give a detailed reply extending your arguments next week. We will also go through your essay and comment then.

Regards,

basudeba

Basudeba,

in previous post you mention viewing your work from perspective of Clifford algebra. Are you familiar with the work of David Hestenes on the geometric interpretation? It gives a powerful intuitive perspective on concepts of space and dimension, and is unique in its capacity to work in any dimension (unlike for instance the vector algebra of Gibbs).

My coauthor Michaele Suisse has posted an essay that seeks to lay a quantum mechanical foundation for mathematical approaches to emergence of sentience. Would be delightful if we could find connection between our work and yours via your Clifford perspective.

Best regards,

Peter

report post as inappropriate

in previous post you mention viewing your work from perspective of Clifford algebra. Are you familiar with the work of David Hestenes on the geometric interpretation? It gives a powerful intuitive perspective on concepts of space and dimension, and is unique in its capacity to work in any dimension (unlike for instance the vector algebra of Gibbs).

My coauthor Michaele Suisse has posted an essay that seeks to lay a quantum mechanical foundation for mathematical approaches to emergence of sentience. Would be delightful if we could find connection between our work and yours via your Clifford perspective.

Best regards,

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Basudeba,

Thinking of Time as a 4th dimension is useful mathematically, but I think it has also led to numerous bizarre concepts that completely miss the mark. We need to free ourselves from the accepted ideas and supplement it with others, risking ridicule of followers of orthodoxy.

Do you consider the 4th dimension of the ancients as "duration" rather then time, considering you said "time" is not a dimension but linked to space? What about the dimensions we don't see. We overcome EM limitations and see beyond the visual, but what about other dimensions. How do the dimensions of the ancients relate to the 10 dimensions of observable space, the tenth being infinite possibilities? Symbolic of infinity?

In my essay I speculate about discovering dark matter in a dynamic galactic network of complex actions and interactions of normal matter with the various forces -- gravitational, EM, weak and strong interacting with orbits around SMBH. I propose that researchers wiggle free of labs and lab assumptions and static models.

Hope you get a chance to comment on my essay.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Thinking of Time as a 4th dimension is useful mathematically, but I think it has also led to numerous bizarre concepts that completely miss the mark. We need to free ourselves from the accepted ideas and supplement it with others, risking ridicule of followers of orthodoxy.

Do you consider the 4th dimension of the ancients as "duration" rather then time, considering you said "time" is not a dimension but linked to space? What about the dimensions we don't see. We overcome EM limitations and see beyond the visual, but what about other dimensions. How do the dimensions of the ancients relate to the 10 dimensions of observable space, the tenth being infinite possibilities? Symbolic of infinity?

In my essay I speculate about discovering dark matter in a dynamic galactic network of complex actions and interactions of normal matter with the various forces -- gravitational, EM, weak and strong interacting with orbits around SMBH. I propose that researchers wiggle free of labs and lab assumptions and static models.

Hope you get a chance to comment on my essay.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

(In my essay) What is a dimension? If you define it precisely and apply to time, you will know the difference. Duration is nothing but a measure of time or time itself, because duration is the interval between events and that is the definition of time.

How do you say that the “10th dimension of observable space, the tenth being infinite possibilities? Symbolic of infinity”? Before that you have to prove that there is a tenth dimension different from what we have defined.

We will go through your essay soon.

Thanks and regards,

basudeba

(In my essay) What is a dimension? If you define it precisely and apply to time, you will know the difference. Duration is nothing but a measure of time or time itself, because duration is the interval between events and that is the definition of time.

How do you say that the “10th dimension of observable space, the tenth being infinite possibilities? Symbolic of infinity”? Before that you have to prove that there is a tenth dimension different from what we have defined.

We will go through your essay soon.

Thanks and regards,

basudeba

Many thanks dear basudeba, for your kindly words (in my page) and mostly, for your meaningful remarks on the relation of reality, math and physics. I can add only one remark - many of us have thinking that the God had special intention - to hid from us the secrets of his creation. I am thinking (and I see that you also!) that the problem of cognition are linked with us, but not with the Creator!

I wish you all the best!

report post as inappropriate

I wish you all the best!

report post as inappropriate

Dear Basudeba Mishra

You write in your essay something what I disagree,but it is pedagogical example for difference between physics and mathematics.

Mishra: Can luminous intensity be a dimension? No, because dimension is a fixed quality that depicts invariant extent in a given direction, but intensity is neither invariant nor has a direction.

Kokosar: It is not true, because mathematically, we can draw still another dimension, and so we obtain also the direction of the vector. But physically, we do not see this direction. But, the goal of physics is to become math. I wrote many times about this, also on FQXi.

You wrote also something similar, as I wrote in my old essay.

You wrote:

In visual perception, where the medium is electromagnetic radiation, we need three mutually perpendicular dimensions corresponding to the electric field, the magnetic field and their direction of motion

This is similar to my sentence:

The author’s own explanation is that three dimensions of a photon are a cause or a consequence of three dimensions of space. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1418

More in my essay and in other my links. Thanks for commenting my essay.

Best regards, Janko Kokošar

report post as inappropriate

You write in your essay something what I disagree,but it is pedagogical example for difference between physics and mathematics.

Mishra: Can luminous intensity be a dimension? No, because dimension is a fixed quality that depicts invariant extent in a given direction, but intensity is neither invariant nor has a direction.

Kokosar: It is not true, because mathematically, we can draw still another dimension, and so we obtain also the direction of the vector. But physically, we do not see this direction. But, the goal of physics is to become math. I wrote many times about this, also on FQXi.

You wrote also something similar, as I wrote in my old essay.

You wrote:

In visual perception, where the medium is electromagnetic radiation, we need three mutually perpendicular dimensions corresponding to the electric field, the magnetic field and their direction of motion

This is similar to my sentence:

The author’s own explanation is that three dimensions of a photon are a cause or a consequence of three dimensions of space. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1418

More in my essay and in other my links. Thanks for commenting my essay.

Best regards, Janko Kokošar

report post as inappropriate

Dear basudeba mishra ji,

Thank you for your nice complements and blessings and thank you for your post on my essay. I am aslo working against Mainstream....

…… Your words……….…………………….You are right that the “resultant UGF vector force is varying according to ever varying dynamic movements and positions of all the masses in the Universe from time to time”....

view entire post

Thank you for your nice complements and blessings and thank you for your post on my essay. I am aslo working against Mainstream....

…… Your words……….…………………….You are right that the “resultant UGF vector force is varying according to ever varying dynamic movements and positions of all the masses in the Universe from time to time”....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

basudeba,

Thanks for your comments on my essay. You didn't respond as you intended above (23 Feb). I understand we're near the deadline but hope you may do so later anyway. Your score in the 3's is way too low I think, but you'll be pleased to hear I hadn't scored it yet so a boost is coming now. (I you hadn't done mine I hope you will).

Best of luck in the run in.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your comments on my essay. You didn't respond as you intended above (23 Feb). I understand we're near the deadline but hope you may do so later anyway. Your score in the 3's is way too low I think, but you'll be pleased to hear I hadn't scored it yet so a boost is coming now. (I you hadn't done mine I hope you will).

Best of luck in the run in.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.