Search FQXi


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.

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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

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/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Colin Walker: on 3/27/18 at 18:16pm UTC, wrote Dear Armin, I followed up your excellent tip about Brans-Dicke and found...

sridattadev kancharla: on 3/20/18 at 18:45pm UTC, wrote Dear Armin, "The dimensionality of every space-like hypersurface of...

Conrad Johnson: on 2/24/18 at 15:15pm UTC, wrote Armin, thanks for your response. To your point 1. – I agree. Within the...

Peter Jackson: on 2/24/18 at 11:26am UTC, wrote Armin, Yes indeed. Already done. Identified across a wide range of...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 2/23/18 at 11:43am UTC, wrote Dear Conrad, thank you for your extended comments. I will reply to some...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 2/23/18 at 11:15am UTC, wrote Dear Colin, Great to hear from you, and thank you so much for the...

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi: on 2/23/18 at 11:07am UTC, wrote Hello Peter, You wrote: "However I remain unconvinced, for one particular...

Steven Andresen: on 2/22/18 at 6:21am UTC, wrote Dear Nikkhah If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the...


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
click titles to read 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.

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


FQXi FORUM
May 21, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Dimensionality in Physics by Armin Nikkhah Shirazi [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 19:32 GMT
Essay Abstract

This paper is the first of a two-part series which re-interprets relativistic length contraction and time dilation in terms of concepts argued to be more fundamental, broadly construed to mean: concepts which point to the next paradigm. In this paper, Lorentz contraction is re-interpreted in terms of the concept of dimensional abatement, and four overarching arguments are given that the latter is more fundamental: Dimensional abatement (1) focuses attention on two fundamental principles overlooked under the current paradigm, (2) permits a more fundamental understanding of speed of light invariance in terms of dimensionally reduced frames, (3) facilitates the identification of magnetic fields as line integrals of dimensionally reduced versions of electric fields, and (4) leads to the identification of a mathematical reason for the observed absence of magnetic charges.

Author Bio

I have degrees in physics and in philosophy and do research as an affiliated temporary scholar at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor at the intersection of physics, philosophy and mathematics. I am also a pianist-composer, having composed over 150 works

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 21:31 GMT
Hello Everyone!

I decided to participate in this contest primarily because it may provide exposure of the ideas contained in this 2-part series of papers to a community of people who seriously think about fundamental physics. Despite strenuous efforts, I could unfortunately not complete the second part of this series in time before the first part posted, but I expect to have it ready very soon. Once it is finished, I will post a link or attachment in reply to this post.

It is my sincere hope that reading my contest entry motivates people to read the second part as well. I welcome (constructive) criticism as well as questions and comments, as it has been my personal experience that often I learned important things through these kinds of interactions (especially criticism, ha!).

If you are a physicist, mathematician or philosopher of physics I especially welcome your thoughts. If you have any objections, I hope you will give me a chance to learn from you by sharing them, and if you think that what is in this paper and in the second part merits consideration by a wider peer audience, please tell your peers and colleagues! Also, I plan on attending the APS March meeting for its entire duration. If you are attending it as well and would like to talk to me in person, I'd be more than happy to meet you there.

May we all gain better fundamental understanding as a fruit of our efforts,

Armin

Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 18:02 GMT
Greetings, Armin,

It’s good to see you in the FQXi competition again. As usual, your contribution is interesting, novel, and creative. However, it is a bit complex and abstract for my taste. One question – is this “dimensional abatement” merely a reinterpretation of relativity, or does it make any predictions (or perhaps theoretical extensions) that could distinguish the two?

I firmly believe that Nature is fundamentally simple and unified, and that fundamental complexity is an indication that one may not be viewing it correctly. You may be interested in reading my essay, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”. I argue that both GR and QM have been fundamentally misunderstood, and that something close to classical physics should be restored, reunifying physics that was split in the early 20th century. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define local time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.

This neoclassical picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will the mainstream start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Best wishes,

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 19:36 GMT
Dear Alan,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your question.

Dimensional abatement is a re-interpretation of the Lorentz transformations which focuses attention to dimensionality. By itself, it does not show anything new. However, it allows us to re-examine familiar aspects of special relativity and other theories through a new lens and notice relationships and insights we might...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 22:31 GMT
Armin,--------

Well presented, but way above my reach. But I did notice something special in the following:

“Definition 1. Absolute Dimensionality: The absolute dimensionality of an object is the number

of independent length dimensions which characterize it.”--------

This “physics” because there are “independant dimensions”. When it comes to the underlying process making this universe, its intrinsic dimensions cannot be independent. The unit dynamic process is whole, integrated, and all its dimensions are connected. This is th reasoning I offer in my essay to claim that this unit dynamic process can only have one variable and one property. It cannot have “independent” variables or “independent” properties. -----------

So, the declaration of independent dimensions makes it clear that we are still doing physics.------

Best of luck,------

Marcel, --------

(system still giving an “n” for hard return, so “-------“ are inserted.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 19:47 GMT
Dear Marcel,

Thank you for your comment. My definition could have been formulated differently. For example, I could have defined the absolute dimensionality of an object in terms of the number of basis vectors of the vector space imposed on the space occupied by the object. But this overly technical way of defining things is in my view unnecessary when most people have a good grasp of what dimensionality means.

Thanks again,

Armin

Bookmark and Share



Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 03:41 GMT
Armin -- I do like you idea that "dimensionality" or "dimensional abatement" basic -- or how we see the world is defined in the "definitional units" we use to comprehend it. But I think your main idea get a bit lost in the maths.

And the idea that all can be derived from "lengths" does have a huge issue it in that numbers are "lengths" in our geometry. (Because nobody draws an area when we say "draw the number 3 on the sand with a stick" everybody will draw a "length") So I think some of your basic points might overlap and could be trimmed down.

Looking forward to part 2.

Well done.

If you have the time please look at my essay which takes your same route and imagines if "definitional units" we use could be wrong. What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 19:52 GMT
Dear Juoko,

Thank you for your comments. I did not claim that "all can be derived from "lengths"". Rather, I claimed that dimensional abatement is a more fundamental way of thinking about relativistic length contraction.

I had a look at your paper, and I will shortly write a comment. To prepare you, it will contain tough but honest criticism of your work. Of course, the format of this essay contest discourages this kind of thing, but for this contest, my main objective is not to win but to get as many professional physicists, mathematicians and philosophers as possible to read my two papers and seriously consider the ideas presented therein.

All the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 16:43 GMT
Seeing that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface, it logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of the real visible Universe allowable.

..........

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 19:55 GMT
Dear Joe,

Thanks for your comment.

Armin

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 06:59 GMT
Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,

I read and enjoyed your essay on dimensionality in physics.

In particular, I appreciated equation (1) in which you reinterpret mass, time, and length in terms of momentum, force, and energy. As you note, Kuhn's paradigm can also be called 'context', and the suggestion is that fundamentality cannot be determined in an absolute sense, only...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your kind words. I will directly address some of your specific comments below:

"I very much like your explanation that Einstein's invariance of the laws of physics first focused on "the independence of the speed of light from the speed of its source" but this was then recast "in terms of the invariance of the speed of light." Thank you! These are not the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 01:43 GMT
Dear Armin,

I am very encouraged by your response above, in particular when you say:

"In part 2, the companion paper to this one, I address this issue in a novel way: Proper time is reconceptualized in terms of duration of existence in spacetime. In that way, time dilation becomes reframed in terms of a comparison of the observed durations of existence of objects during an interval...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


peter cameron wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 00:33 GMT
Hello Armin,

Glad to see you here. Was looking for you back in August 2014, spent the month in Ann Arbor.

Having spent a good part of my career as an instrumentation specialist watching the highly relativistic beams in RHIC, designing pickups to measure their various properties, and spending a little time thinking about just what i was actually looking at, i find your unconventional approach to the implications of SR hard to mix with my pretty much congealed worldview of how things behave relativistically. Hard to get a sense of just how the pieces fit together, what happens to the scale invariant properties of various models,...

Assumption i guess has to be that everything you're doing is consistent with SR, that the equivalence is either proven or provable.

Will part two address the quantum? Curious to see how your ideas play there. It seems that dimensionality might be more sharply defined there than what is permitted by SR.

Clifford algebra is the language of QM. What is missing in mainstream is the geometric interpretation of the algebra. Geometric product of Geometric Algebra mixes dimensionality. For instance the product of two lines is a point and a plane. I'm not aware of any calculations in the literature showing some sort of smooth deformation (of what? geometry of electric and magnetic fields?) during evolution of the geometric product, showing just how two lines gradually morph into point and plane during dimensional abatement or dimensional 'enhancement' (got a better word for this?).

Curious regarding how your ideas might be applied to details of the interaction of two geometric wavefunctions (comprised of point, line, plane, and volume elements).

Best regards,

Pete

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear Peter,

Good to hear from you. I will reply to some of your comments below:

"Having spent a good part of my career as an instrumentation specialist watching the highly relativistic beams in RHIC, designing pickups to measure their various properties, and spending a little time thinking about just what i was actually looking at, i find your unconventional approach to the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



corciovei silviu wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 15:18 GMT
Greetings MR. Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,

As far as i could understand, you point out, through some obvious facts, the relativity of "what is fundamental" At some point you say that "The mathematical equivalence of the fundamentality of the two sets of quantities suggests that, in general, fundamentality cannot be determined in an absolute sense, i.e. independent of the paradigm within which it is considered. And this gives us a clue for identifying the most fundamental things of a theory within any given paradigm: it has to be those things which point to, or at least hint at, the next paradigm".

Could this quote may be regarded as we may change the understanding of the word "fundamental" and viewing it more like an idea, a point of view or a perspective which will not be fundamental in the search of “what is fundamental”? Will this kind or reasoning suit in what you call the next paradigm? if so,then... if not, please do not let me into "the obscure" and explain my misunderstanding

cheers, Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 18:15 GMT
Dear Silviu,

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting on it. to answer your question, yes "fundamental" is a property that I argue is not intrinsic to anything because it depends on the background worldview, the paradigm in which it is considered, and so it can very well be thought of as an idea or point of view.

I don't quite understand what you mean by saying it "will not be fundamental in the search of what is fundamental", but the most charitable interpretation I can give is in agreement: If something that hints at the next paradigm is supposed to be fundamental, then, once the next paradigm arrives, then it will no longer be fundamental because that term would be reserved for things that point to the paradigm after.

This presupposes a Kuhnian worldview according to which progress in science is not really a progress toward the truth; although I share a lot of views of Kuhn, on this issue I tend to be skeptical of them. I like to think that in some sense we do progress more toward some kind of truth, which perhaps could be expressed in many ways that seem different but turn out to be equivalent. If that is true, and there is such a thing as a final paradigm, then the conception of fundamentality I proposed will fail at that stage. However, I am not worried about that too much.

Thank you again,

Armin

Bookmark and Share


corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 02:28 GMT
It seems that you understood very well my simple words but it also seems that you like to have “the last word”

Respectfuly, Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 03:14 GMT
Professor Shirazi,

First, my essay contestant pledge: goo.gl/KCCujt

Positives of your paper:

-- It is well written and easy to comprehend.

-- Your use of equations is orderly and accurate.

-- You are good about explaining the context of your paper and its connections to other earlier works you have done on this came topic

-- In terms of physics, I think...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 12:01 GMT
Mr. Bollinger

I beg your pardon sir, I don't want to be disrespectful but you confused me in the end of your comment where you say “… my biggest problem,and it's one that affects many of the large number of submissions this year: You did not answer the question FQXi asked which was to explain what makes a theory “more fundamental” “ The confusion arises when the actual title of the contest is read “what is fundamental?”. It does not ask anything else besides “what is fundamental?”. No theory of something “more fundamental” is required and the explanations of different interpretations are freely chosen by each participant. In this regard it seems that Mr. Shirazi’s essay is a personal approach for the question asked by the name of this contest ,“what is fundamental?”. Why is that a problem if the content of his way of viewing things is relevant for what we call to be "real"?

So, either all the essay’s that you sustain having the same problem (which will be “other interpretation than yours of something that lets you interpret whatever you want") are wrong in interpretation, and then maybe the contest question is wrongly asked, Or you’re on the wrong track of thinking that everybody should think like you in interpreting an open question.

...or some third option?

Respectfully, Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Terry Bollinger replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 16:51 GMT
Silviu,

To see an outstanding example of an essay that stays razor-sharp in answering the question as asked by FQXi, please look at essay 3034 by Karen Crowther.

This issue is not complicated. I realize a lot of essayists decided this year to reinterpret the actual question posed by FQXi as an opening for presenting personal physics theories. However, I have not been able to see any interpretation of what FQXi actually asked that supports such a reinterpretation. I have done two special issues of a technical magazine myself, and from that first-hand experience I can assure you first hand that submissions that specifically address the theme as stated are both hugely appreciated and make life a lot easier for the reviewers.

That said, I enjoyed reading your essay, and in particular your idea that massive versus massless could be reinterpreted as a change in dimensionality. Intriguing!

Cheers,

Terry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 21:50 GMT
Dear Terry (if I may),

There seems to be a slight mix-up in that you replied to Silviu's response to your comment by name, yet indicated something in your last paragraph which suggests that you may have thought that you were addressing me. Indeed, I am coming a little late to this conversation, but let me thank you right away for taking the time to read my essay and making some thoughtful...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear Dr Armin Nikkhah Shirazi

This is a nice discussion and interpretation of "Lorentz contraction" You have correctly devised the four points viz... (1) focuses attention on two fundamental principles overlooked under the current paradigm, (2) permits a more fundamental understanding of speed of light invariance in terms of dimensionally reduced frames, (3) facilitates the identification...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 22:54 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

Thank you for your comments,

Armin

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 11:01 GMT
Armin,

Our past agreement that better fundamental understanding of both QM and SR continues. I was fascinated by your original and well argued hypothesis, though I confess I had to read most twice. An excellent job, worth a high score. However I remain unconvinced, for one particular reason; that there seems an even simpler way to solve the problem, with Doppler shifts. Please comment on...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 11:07 GMT
Hello Peter,

You wrote:

"However I remain unconvinced, for one particular reason; that there seems an even simpler way to solve the problem, with Doppler shifts."

You never specified what in my essay you were unconvinced about. Reading the paragraph after that, it seems that your objections are to the standard way of interpreting the LT's. Unless your approach turns out to either

1) have measurable implications that are different from the those of the standard intepretation, or

2) lead to novel insights which are unavailable under the current interpretation,

I would say it is neither better nor worse than it.

The reinterpretation of length contraction which I discussed in my essay falls under the second rubric, with an eye on not just understanding in a novel way a facet of special relativity, but the entire contemporary worldview. What is in my essay is by itself not sufficient to do that, but it is a stepping stone towards it.

If your preferred interpretation functions in a similar manner, then you should work out those consequences and add them to the arsenal of evidence in favor of your worldview.

Best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 11:26 GMT
Armin,

Yes indeed. Already done. Identified across a wide range of sciences. Even cosmology, papers published and essays here scored top 10 inc. 1st & 2nd. I recall you made good connection with some.

The problem is that even when an established theory leaves anomalies and paradoxes no better fit theory can replace it due to the way our minds work; We build mental models and compare input to those. It its a poor fit we reject it.

That's the 'cognitive dissonance' I discussed last year. It's just the human condition and current state of our intellectual evolution. Indeed, (like you so far!), many don't bother to even look! Those who do, properly, are rewarded.

Yes, it goes well beyond SR, i.e. replacing the 'Law of the Excluded Middle' to remove all paradox from logic, solves Stellar Aberration at last, etc. etc. All published & archived, some on arXiv, i.e. Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies . and in videos. I decided if it was correct it should do the impossible; Unify SR and QM. That's what this years essay does. If you get to read it first see the 8 part sequence I've just put on my posts to familiarise yourself with an outline to fit the ontology to.

It's an amazing discovery (in Bells words & as he anticipated) so I hope you get to study it.

Very Best, and well done for yours, very good and agreeable apart from that one point. But 'agreement' isn't a scoring criteria of course (so I pencilled it in for well above its present level)

Hope yours gets in the top group. Very best.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Colin Walker wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 02:28 GMT
Hi Armin. I think you are on to something with a theoretical study of dimensional abatement, as you call it.

There is an aspect of general relativity which might also be interpreted in terms of dimensions in the way you suggest. Bowler shows how length, time, mass, energy, etc. are supposed to vary with the gauge scale factor. Various experiments provide confirmation to first order.

There is a table in the Endnotes of my essay showing radial and transverse dimensional variability due to a gravitational field. See Ref 7: Bowler M.G., Gravitation and Relativity. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1976).

Cheers, Colin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 11:15 GMT
Dear Colin,

Great to hear from you, and thank you so much for the reference to the table. I did not know about it, and it certainly looks intriguing. I will have to think some more about it to understand how it relates to my ideas. What I presented here is just, in a way, the tip of the iceberg, but regrettably presenting the rest is taking longer than I expected (also, I am currently traveling, and that does not help, ha).

I will shortly attempt to comment on your essay as well.

All the best,

Armin

Bookmark and Share



Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Armin,

I’m sorry that I’m not well-equipped to appreciate your main argument here, though it seems reasonable and well-argued. Your opening section certainly makes sense to me, and in fact I think your “intelligent alien culture” is onto something by treating distance, duration and mass as derived quantities. I was also intrigued by your treatment of “relative...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Armin Nikkhah Shirazi replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 11:43 GMT
Dear Conrad,

thank you for your extended comments. I will reply to some of them below:

"I was also intrigued by your treatment of “relative dimensionality” in terms of volume-boundary ratios, but it wasn’t clear to me how much is gained by this."

Each paradigm is based on certain fundamental ideas which serve as a foundation for everything else that follows. However,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 15:15 GMT
Armin, thanks for your response. To your point 1. – I agree. Within the current paradigm of course it’s understood that there’s a basic connection between electric and magnetic fields, and that makes it harder rather than easier to see the possibly more radical relationship you’re pointing out.

Likewise with your four principles… though I’m unclear about the concept of a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 06:21 GMT
Dear Nikkhah

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sridattadev kancharla wrote on Mar. 20, 2018 @ 18:45 GMT
Dear Armin,

"The dimensionality of every space-like hypersurface of Minkowski spacetime is everywhere the same." -- what you are referring to is Universal Consciousness. I welcome you to read Consciousness is fundamental Geometry Of Dimensions

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Colin Walker wrote on Mar. 27, 2018 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Armin,

I followed up your excellent tip about Brans-Dicke and found that Yilmaz's exponential metric is what I call the Machian metric.

Dicke has said that Yilmaz's field equation is the local field equation needed for the exponential metric in isotropic coordinates. It has been shown to violate the equivalence principle. Although I expect the violation is beyond our current means of detection, this possibility can be set aside as less than ideal.

I think that the problem with this sort of modification is that it does not address the basic issue, which is that a multiplicative process duplicating relativistic composition needs to be incorporated, instead of trying to add something as compensation. It looks like the field equations would need to be modified in a way that has not been proposed. And that is information gained!

Regarding your dimensional theory and special relativity, if you look at the transverse variation due to gravity in my table of dimensional variability, you will notice that it exhibits the same sort of variation as the Lorentz factor, on substituting that for the gravitational scale factor. Perhaps it is less of a conceptual stretch to see GR as having two branches of dimensionality (radial and transverse), if SR is considered to be associated (somehow) with the transverse branch by virtue of their matching dimensional variability.

Many thanks, and best wishes,

Colin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.