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

Current Essay Contest

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

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

**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

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

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

**Wilhelmus de Wilde**: *on* 10/18/11 at 14:39pm UTC, wrote ps congratulations with your continued presence on the home page, forum...

**Wilhelmus de Wilde**: *on* 10/18/11 at 14:35pm UTC, wrote Hi again Armin, It is true that you can give the most grounded answers...

**Armin Nikkhah Shirazi**: *on* 10/18/11 at 10:01am UTC, wrote Hi Wilhelmus, You said:"perhaps I am more a philosopher as a scientist." ...

**Wilhelmus de Wilde**: *on* 10/17/11 at 16:17pm UTC, wrote Thank you Armin for the exhaustive reply, perhaps I am more a philosopher...

**Armin Nikkhah Shirazi**: *on* 10/16/11 at 2:23am UTC, wrote Hi Wilhelmus, You said: "In SR the flow of time is a. relative to the...

**Wilhelmus de Wilde**: *on* 10/14/11 at 15:35pm UTC, wrote sorry hit a wrong button, so I continue : you still accept the arrow of...

**Wilhelmus de Wilde**: *on* 10/14/11 at 15:24pm UTC, wrote Hi Armin, thank you for your "clarifications". In SR the flow of time is...

**Armin Nikkhah Shirazi**: *on* 10/13/11 at 16:50pm UTC, wrote Hi Wlhelmus, On your first point, again I have the impression that the...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**H.H.J. Luediger**: "Even darker.... one can not easily downrate a racehorse to a donkey, but..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**Steve Agnew**: "Well thank-you, you are very kind. I have come to appreciate the fact that..."
*in* Quantum Dream Time

**Samuel Parsons**: "O also means a whole new universe in a box can be recreated a miniverse..."
*in* Outside the Box

**Samuel Parsons**: "Is it 127? It's always comes back here. Just saying also I'm trying to..."
*in* Outside the Box

**Zeeya Merali**: "INSPYRE, INternational School on modern PhYsics and REsearch, organized by..."
*in* Welcome to INSPYRE 2020 -...

**David Sloan**: "Dear Alan, For any discussion regarding the essay contest, the contact..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**Jonathan Dickau**: "Thank you Peter... For the kind words of explanation. It is looking like..."
*in* From Cosmic Lighthouses...

**Lawrence Crowell**: "Tejinder, I was intrigued by your FQXi essay. Thanks for this reference to..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Building Agency in the Biology Lab**

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

**Think Quantum to Build Better AI**

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

**Outside the Box**

A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

**The Quantum Agent**

Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

**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.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

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

FQXi FORUM

May 28, 2020

CATEGORY:
Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011)
[back]

TOPIC: A Derivation of the Quantum Phase by Armin Nikkhah Shirazi [refresh]

TOPIC: A Derivation of the Quantum Phase by Armin Nikkhah Shirazi [refresh]

The quantum phase has profound effects on quantum mechanics but its physical origin is currently unexplained. This paper derives its general form from two physical axioms: 1) in the limit in which space goes to zero, spacetime reduces to a constant quantity of areatime, and 2) the proper time dimensions of areatime and of spacetime are orthogonal but can be compared to each other according to what will here be called an angular dual bilateral symmetry. The mathematical derivation and the explanation of the physical origin of the quantum phase from these two axioms is straightforward and implies that the quantum phase is intimately related to the quantization of spacetime.

The author studies physics and philosophy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He has a degree in pharmacy and is also a composer-pianist.

Armin,

An absolutely fascinating essay. It's hard to believe that I'm the first to comment, but I guess there are a lot of essays to read. I have committed to read five a day. Of the five essays I read today, yours was by comparison, not only worth the time, but worth a second read and review. I'm sure I'll have more comments after I have time for a second read. I would also like to read your other essay from the nature of time contest, too.

Have a great day,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

An absolutely fascinating essay. It's hard to believe that I'm the first to comment, but I guess there are a lot of essays to read. I have committed to read five a day. Of the five essays I read today, yours was by comparison, not only worth the time, but worth a second read and review. I'm sure I'll have more comments after I have time for a second read. I would also like to read your other essay from the nature of time contest, too.

Have a great day,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Dan,

Thank you for your kind remarks. I think the absence of comments in my forum reflects a combination of two factors: First, although I think to a physicist/mathematician the content of my essay should be fairly clear, I am not so confident that this is also the case for lay persons. Second, the ideas presented here are really unfamiliar (at least I have not seen them elsewhere) and it takes time to get used to them.

I am very glad to hear that you intend to review this essay, which is an excellent way to make the basic ideas seem less unfamiliar, and look forward to your questions, comments and objections.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your kind remarks. I think the absence of comments in my forum reflects a combination of two factors: First, although I think to a physicist/mathematician the content of my essay should be fairly clear, I am not so confident that this is also the case for lay persons. Second, the ideas presented here are really unfamiliar (at least I have not seen them elsewhere) and it takes time to get used to them.

I am very glad to hear that you intend to review this essay, which is an excellent way to make the basic ideas seem less unfamiliar, and look forward to your questions, comments and objections.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Dear Armin Shirazi,

First I must mention that your essay technically is much better than some other essays I saw yesterday. However, some questions need clarification.

- ''all objects of atomic and nuclear proportion have in common is that, compared to objects on our scale, they are vastly more two-dimensional''.

It contradicts to experimental data. According to your theory, the interaction of micro-objects in a plane must be stronger than in third dimension because particles are flat and does not feel the third dimension. For example, the coherent beam of atoms or photons must have different properties in a plane (two dimensions) concerning a third dimension. The existence of a three dimensional nucleus as a sphere contradicts to your theory. Also, if nucleons were flat, they must interact in a plane stronger than in other dimensions that contradicts to experimental data.

- ''Photons exist in areatime. photons must be 2-dimensional entities''

Please read the Wikipedia_Photon: Rather, the photon seems to be a point-like particle since it is absorbed or emitted as a whole by arbitrarily small systems, systems much smaller than its wavelength, such as an atomic nucleus (10-15 m across) or even the point-like electron. Also, since photons must be 2-dimensional entities, they must have different properties in a plane conserning third dimension that contradicts to experimenal data.

Sincerely,

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

First I must mention that your essay technically is much better than some other essays I saw yesterday. However, some questions need clarification.

- ''all objects of atomic and nuclear proportion have in common is that, compared to objects on our scale, they are vastly more two-dimensional''.

It contradicts to experimental data. According to your theory, the interaction of micro-objects in a plane must be stronger than in third dimension because particles are flat and does not feel the third dimension. For example, the coherent beam of atoms or photons must have different properties in a plane (two dimensions) concerning a third dimension. The existence of a three dimensional nucleus as a sphere contradicts to your theory. Also, if nucleons were flat, they must interact in a plane stronger than in other dimensions that contradicts to experimental data.

- ''Photons exist in areatime. photons must be 2-dimensional entities''

Please read the Wikipedia_Photon: Rather, the photon seems to be a point-like particle since it is absorbed or emitted as a whole by arbitrarily small systems, systems much smaller than its wavelength, such as an atomic nucleus (10-15 m across) or even the point-like electron. Also, since photons must be 2-dimensional entities, they must have different properties in a plane conserning third dimension that contradicts to experimenal data.

Sincerely,

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Constantin,

Thank you for your objections. They illuminate where I need to express my ideas more clearly. I will attempt to give a thorough response.

You say:"It contradicts to experimental data."

The statement about smaller objects being more two-dimensional than larger objects of same shape was meant as a mathematical-not empirical-statement about the geometric properties of...

view entire post

Thank you for your objections. They illuminate where I need to express my ideas more clearly. I will attempt to give a thorough response.

You say:"It contradicts to experimental data."

The statement about smaller objects being more two-dimensional than larger objects of same shape was meant as a mathematical-not empirical-statement about the geometric properties of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dear Armin,

You wrote: ''I would be grateful if you could point me to any place in my essay where I mentioned anything about any kind of interactions''.

The absence of this conclusion in your theory is a flaw in your theory because it is logically self-evident. You wrote: In order to transition from three to two dimensions, a direction in space has to vanish. There is a way of postulating a scale at which space vanishes while area is preserved which avoids these difficulties: we assume that at that scale not only space vanishes, but spacetime itself is reduced by one dimension''. Therefore ''all objects of atomic and nuclear proportion have in common is that, compared to objects on our scale, they are vastly more two-dimensional''.

Consequently, if a direction in space has to vanish, it is self-evident that a particle can interact in two dimensions only, because one does not feel other dimensions. It is self-evident, it is a right logical conclusion and I'm surprised that you missed this inevitable conclusion in your theory. For example, imagine two one-dimensional objects (lines) in one dimensional space. They can interact one with another in one dimension only because they do not feel other dimensions. Please explain how these lines can interact in three-dimensions. Thus, since particles really do not interact in a plane, but in space, it is a evidence that the ''areatime'' theory is wrong.

''It seems to me that you are still thinking very much in terms of the classical trajectory picture''.

The classical trajectory picture appears as an inevitable consequence of our discussions about the shape or dimensions of elementary particles. According to quantum mechanics, a particle is smeared out over some region of space and its position and momentum is uncertain. Therefore it is senseless to discuss about the shape of a particle ''photons must be 2-dimensional entities'' because it leds to the classical trajectory picture. Another your proposition ''When I claimed that smaller objects are more two-dimensional than larger ones of same shape'' also contradicts quantum mechanics; particles cannot have shape (as a plane). Since a particle is smeared out over some region of spacetime then one is in three-dimensions always and therefore the notion of areatime is wrong. And the propositions ''Photons exist in areatime. photons must be 2-dimensional entities'' contradicts quantum mechanics.

Sincerely,

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: ''I would be grateful if you could point me to any place in my essay where I mentioned anything about any kind of interactions''.

The absence of this conclusion in your theory is a flaw in your theory because it is logically self-evident. You wrote: In order to transition from three to two dimensions, a direction in space has to vanish. There is a way of postulating a scale at which space vanishes while area is preserved which avoids these difficulties: we assume that at that scale not only space vanishes, but spacetime itself is reduced by one dimension''. Therefore ''all objects of atomic and nuclear proportion have in common is that, compared to objects on our scale, they are vastly more two-dimensional''.

Consequently, if a direction in space has to vanish, it is self-evident that a particle can interact in two dimensions only, because one does not feel other dimensions. It is self-evident, it is a right logical conclusion and I'm surprised that you missed this inevitable conclusion in your theory. For example, imagine two one-dimensional objects (lines) in one dimensional space. They can interact one with another in one dimension only because they do not feel other dimensions. Please explain how these lines can interact in three-dimensions. Thus, since particles really do not interact in a plane, but in space, it is a evidence that the ''areatime'' theory is wrong.

''It seems to me that you are still thinking very much in terms of the classical trajectory picture''.

The classical trajectory picture appears as an inevitable consequence of our discussions about the shape or dimensions of elementary particles. According to quantum mechanics, a particle is smeared out over some region of space and its position and momentum is uncertain. Therefore it is senseless to discuss about the shape of a particle ''photons must be 2-dimensional entities'' because it leds to the classical trajectory picture. Another your proposition ''When I claimed that smaller objects are more two-dimensional than larger ones of same shape'' also contradicts quantum mechanics; particles cannot have shape (as a plane). Since a particle is smeared out over some region of spacetime then one is in three-dimensions always and therefore the notion of areatime is wrong. And the propositions ''Photons exist in areatime. photons must be 2-dimensional entities'' contradicts quantum mechanics.

Sincerely,

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Constantin,

I can see that there is a gap between what you think my theory says and what it actually says. It is my responsibility to make it very clear what it actually says, so I'll have a go at it.

You wrote: "The absence of this conclusion in your theory is a flaw in your theory because it is logically self-evident."

I'm not sure what you mean. What is 'it' that is...

view entire post

I can see that there is a gap between what you think my theory says and what it actually says. It is my responsibility to make it very clear what it actually says, so I'll have a go at it.

You wrote: "The absence of this conclusion in your theory is a flaw in your theory because it is logically self-evident."

I'm not sure what you mean. What is 'it' that is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Armin,

It is a good method to defend your essay by claiming that nobody can understand your unfinished theory. Meanwhile, my objections were correct because there is the main conclusion at the end of your essay: "The derivation implies that quantum objects actually exist in areatime". It is your words that: all objects of atomic and nuclear proportion have in common is that, compared to objects on our scale, they are vastly more two-dimensional. Therefore, at least partially, the essay contradicts to reality. Let the FQXi community sees, if the quantum particles are flat or not. The existence of head-on collisions proton-proton, electron-electron in colliders is a proof that quantum particles are not flat. The Compton scattering phenomenon is a proof that photons are not two-dimensional entities.

Armin, this proposition ''The classical trajectory picture appears as an inevitable consequence of our discussions about the shape or dimensions of elementary particles'' is true, because, if you'll try to see the shape, for it is necessary to localize a photon in a very small region of space with definite position - and it is an approach to classical picture. The macroscopic classical bodies only seem to have the ''definite'' positions and trajectories.

I finish here, since Armin does not recognize the logic, confuses readers and uses the opposing propositions; He wrote first in the essay that particles (photons) have the shape, then he says the opposite. He wrote first in the essay that quantum particles are flat, then he tries to show the opposite...

Sincerely,

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

It is a good method to defend your essay by claiming that nobody can understand your unfinished theory. Meanwhile, my objections were correct because there is the main conclusion at the end of your essay: "The derivation implies that quantum objects actually exist in areatime". It is your words that: all objects of atomic and nuclear proportion have in common is that, compared to objects on our scale, they are vastly more two-dimensional. Therefore, at least partially, the essay contradicts to reality. Let the FQXi community sees, if the quantum particles are flat or not. The existence of head-on collisions proton-proton, electron-electron in colliders is a proof that quantum particles are not flat. The Compton scattering phenomenon is a proof that photons are not two-dimensional entities.

Armin, this proposition ''The classical trajectory picture appears as an inevitable consequence of our discussions about the shape or dimensions of elementary particles'' is true, because, if you'll try to see the shape, for it is necessary to localize a photon in a very small region of space with definite position - and it is an approach to classical picture. The macroscopic classical bodies only seem to have the ''definite'' positions and trajectories.

I finish here, since Armin does not recognize the logic, confuses readers and uses the opposing propositions; He wrote first in the essay that particles (photons) have the shape, then he says the opposite. He wrote first in the essay that quantum particles are flat, then he tries to show the opposite...

Sincerely,

Constantin

report post as inappropriate

Constantin,

You wrote: "It is a good method to defend your essay by claiming that nobody can understand your unfinished theory."

I did not claim that"nobody" understands my essay, only that you misunderstood it. But, I don't blame you because this essay presents only part of the picture.

You wrote: "I finish here, since Armin does not recognize the logic, confuses readers and uses the opposing propositions;"

Fortunately, our exchange is publicly available so that readers can decide for themselves how accurate your characterizations are.

I thank you for the time you took to consider my essay and for making clear the dangers of presenting only a partial picture of a truly novel idea. My hope is that once the rest is in, this sort of problem will become moot.

Best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

You wrote: "It is a good method to defend your essay by claiming that nobody can understand your unfinished theory."

I did not claim that"nobody" understands my essay, only that you misunderstood it. But, I don't blame you because this essay presents only part of the picture.

You wrote: "I finish here, since Armin does not recognize the logic, confuses readers and uses the opposing propositions;"

Fortunately, our exchange is publicly available so that readers can decide for themselves how accurate your characterizations are.

I thank you for the time you took to consider my essay and for making clear the dangers of presenting only a partial picture of a truly novel idea. My hope is that once the rest is in, this sort of problem will become moot.

Best,

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Armin,

I've had a chance to your essay a second time, but really haven't had a chance to study it. I have one question to start. You begin with the properties of the ratio of A to V, but then your first axiom relates quantities of spacetime U_4 in the limit as V approaches 0. Since the geometry of spacetime is different then the geometry of space, shouldn't V be in terms of the invariant interval such that:

In other words, how do you know that time doesn't vanish also, since c approaches infinity at this scale. Doesn't it?

Dan

report post as inappropriate

I've had a chance to your essay a second time, but really haven't had a chance to study it. I have one question to start. You begin with the properties of the ratio of A to V, but then your first axiom relates quantities of spacetime U_4 in the limit as V approaches 0. Since the geometry of spacetime is different then the geometry of space, shouldn't V be in terms of the invariant interval such that:

In other words, how do you know that time doesn't vanish also, since c approaches infinity at this scale. Doesn't it?

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Dan,

Before I start, let me thank you for making the extra effort of reading my essay a second time and for raising an interesting question.

There are two separate issues here:

First, I realize now that I used the same letter for two distinct concepts, which may cause confusion. Pardon me for that, I will attempt to clarify now:

The A/V ratio in the beginning was used as an argument to make axiom I seem more plausible. In this context, A refers to the surface area of a 3-D object, which naturally exists in spacetime.

After axiom I is introduced, the symbol A refers to a two-dimensional region in areatime within the limit specified by that axiom.

So, before going further in answering your question, I must specify the sense in which A is used. My impression is that since you used A in the context of the A/V ratio, you mean it in the surface area sense, so that will be sense in which I'll use it as well.

The second issue has to do with how to characterize the 'transition' from U_4 to U-3 in terms of the components of the volume element. It seems that you are saying that the occurrence of this transition should be independent of the inertial frame used (did I understand right?) and to make it so, one should use an expression for V in terms of the invariant interval. I admit that I need to think about this, I will get back to you soon.

Thanks again,

Armin

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Before I start, let me thank you for making the extra effort of reading my essay a second time and for raising an interesting question.

There are two separate issues here:

First, I realize now that I used the same letter for two distinct concepts, which may cause confusion. Pardon me for that, I will attempt to clarify now:

The A/V ratio in the beginning was used as an argument to make axiom I seem more plausible. In this context, A refers to the surface area of a 3-D object, which naturally exists in spacetime.

After axiom I is introduced, the symbol A refers to a two-dimensional region in areatime within the limit specified by that axiom.

So, before going further in answering your question, I must specify the sense in which A is used. My impression is that since you used A in the context of the A/V ratio, you mean it in the surface area sense, so that will be sense in which I'll use it as well.

The second issue has to do with how to characterize the 'transition' from U_4 to U-3 in terms of the components of the volume element. It seems that you are saying that the occurrence of this transition should be independent of the inertial frame used (did I understand right?) and to make it so, one should use an expression for V in terms of the invariant interval. I admit that I need to think about this, I will get back to you soon.

Thanks again,

Armin

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Irvin,

Yes, you where correct in the way in which you interpreted my correspondence. I was referring to A in the surface area sense, and believe that since you are working with quantities of spacetime in your axiom, you should also be using an expression for V in terms of the invariant interval. The important question is: As V of spacetime approaches zero does U_4 "transition" to U_3 or U_2 (which is 2-D space, with no time)?

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Yes, you where correct in the way in which you interpreted my correspondence. I was referring to A in the surface area sense, and believe that since you are working with quantities of spacetime in your axiom, you should also be using an expression for V in terms of the invariant interval. The important question is: As V of spacetime approaches zero does U_4 "transition" to U_3 or U_2 (which is 2-D space, with no time)?

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Hi Dan,

Sorry it took so long to to respond to your query. I have thought about your question a lot, but could not come to a conclusive answer. This leads me to suspect that there is something about the question itself that is causing the problem.

I believe now that, rather than focusing on the limit and the volume element "in and of itself" it is more appropriate to think of some physical system that exists in it. This allows us to unambiguously define tau_A. I suspect that trying to define the emergence process in the limit geometrically without taking into account the system that exists in it won't work. I have written the follow-up paper and posted a link to it (see further down) and modified the relevant axiom to take this into account. I basically avoided this issue you are asking about because I am still not clear exactly how it should be done correctly. Fortunately, even though this problem is not addressed, it is still possible to get a lot of mileage out of the framework. I think that the issue of exactly how to define the volume is something that can only be done within the context of field theory. Later this summer I will take a jab at it.

Armin

Sorry it took so long to to respond to your query. I have thought about your question a lot, but could not come to a conclusive answer. This leads me to suspect that there is something about the question itself that is causing the problem.

I believe now that, rather than focusing on the limit and the volume element "in and of itself" it is more appropriate to think of some physical system that exists in it. This allows us to unambiguously define tau_A. I suspect that trying to define the emergence process in the limit geometrically without taking into account the system that exists in it won't work. I have written the follow-up paper and posted a link to it (see further down) and modified the relevant axiom to take this into account. I basically avoided this issue you are asking about because I am still not clear exactly how it should be done correctly. Fortunately, even though this problem is not addressed, it is still possible to get a lot of mileage out of the framework. I think that the issue of exactly how to define the volume is something that can only be done within the context of field theory. Later this summer I will take a jab at it.

Armin

Dear Sir,

The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality. We do not see how this condition could be satisfied in your description of area-time.

You have correctly described the relationship of Area that is related to two dimensional fields and Volume that is related to three dimensional structures. Both are related to the radius r or rather d or 2r....

view entire post

The validity of a physical statement rests with its correspondence to reality. We do not see how this condition could be satisfied in your description of area-time.

You have correctly described the relationship of Area that is related to two dimensional fields and Volume that is related to three dimensional structures. Both are related to the radius r or rather d or 2r....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hello,

Somehow I overlooked this post (?) previously or at least I have no recollection of noticing it before. But, in the spirit of 'better late than never' let me give a short response.

There is a basic mathematical error in your argument right at the beginning. The variations in volume and area of a ball are not "proportionate" because they vary in different powers of r. For example, if you double the surface area of a ball, you do not double its volume, you increase it by a factor of 2* sqrt 2.

So any conclusions you draw from this will be erroneous as well.

Unfortunately, I did not understand the rest of your post, so I have nothing further to say.

Armin

Somehow I overlooked this post (?) previously or at least I have no recollection of noticing it before. But, in the spirit of 'better late than never' let me give a short response.

There is a basic mathematical error in your argument right at the beginning. The variations in volume and area of a ball are not "proportionate" because they vary in different powers of r. For example, if you double the surface area of a ball, you do not double its volume, you increase it by a factor of 2* sqrt 2.

So any conclusions you draw from this will be erroneous as well.

Unfortunately, I did not understand the rest of your post, so I have nothing further to say.

Armin

Dear Armin,

Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge for all the we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.

Please read Theory of everything at your convenience posted by me in this contest.

Who am I? I am virtual reality, I is absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Wisdom is more important than imagination is more important than knowledge for all the we know is just an imagination chosen wisely.

Please read Theory of everything at your convenience posted by me in this contest.

Who am I? I am virtual reality, I is absolute truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

FYI: I responded to another gentleman "Basudeba", asking me to comment on part of your Essay. Therefore you may be interested. You can see my reply to your Essay under my Essay: By Russ Otter Subtext: Digital or Analog? Date of reply March 7th. To Dear Basudeba,

Your Essay is obviously brilliant, but it properly draws no critical conclusions, however it does open some doors...

Deep Congratulations on your outstanding detail and work,

Russ

report post as inappropriate

Your Essay is obviously brilliant, but it properly draws no critical conclusions, however it does open some doors...

Deep Congratulations on your outstanding detail and work,

Russ

report post as inappropriate

Dear Sir,

We have replied to Mr. Russ Otter in his thread. Kindly see it there.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

We have replied to Mr. Russ Otter in his thread. Kindly see it there.

Regards,

basudeba.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Armin,

Your essay offers a very creative idea, to try to understand the quantum phase from first principles. It is interesting to try to imagine "area without volume," where, as you put it, "space vanishes while area is preserved." It reminds me of the idea of compactification for higher dimensions, only applied to spacetime itself.

Best regards,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Your essay offers a very creative idea, to try to understand the quantum phase from first principles. It is interesting to try to imagine "area without volume," where, as you put it, "space vanishes while area is preserved." It reminds me of the idea of compactification for higher dimensions, only applied to spacetime itself.

Best regards,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Dear Armin Nikkhah Shirazi,

I like your essay and I have a similar result. In my case I assume directly the periodicity as constraint (in your paper is $\tau_a$), which is nothing else that the de Broglie periodicity of fields. I show that this provides a remarkable matching with ordinary relativistic QM.

I hope you'll give a look to my essay link[\link].

Good luck,

Donatello

report post as inappropriate

I like your essay and I have a similar result. In my case I assume directly the periodicity as constraint (in your paper is $\tau_a$), which is nothing else that the de Broglie periodicity of fields. I show that this provides a remarkable matching with ordinary relativistic QM.

I hope you'll give a look to my essay link[\link].

Good luck,

Donatello

report post as inappropriate

PS: you should give a look also to the concept of de Broglie phase harmony.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

To anyone interested,

It took me much longer than I expected to complete the related and follow up papers, but they are done now. The links to the papers, listed in order of development of the theory, can be found below:

Quantum Superposition, Mass, and General Relativity:

http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/83863

A Dimensional Theory of Quantum Mechanics:

http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/83865

EPR Paradox as Evidence for the Emergent Nature of Spacetime:

http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/83864

Armin

It took me much longer than I expected to complete the related and follow up papers, but they are done now. The links to the papers, listed in order of development of the theory, can be found below:

Quantum Superposition, Mass, and General Relativity:

http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/83863

A Dimensional Theory of Quantum Mechanics:

http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/83865

EPR Paradox as Evidence for the Emergent Nature of Spacetime:

http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/83864

Armin

Hi Armin,

As you were mentioned in the FQXi range of Forum updates, I arrived to read your essay.

It was however already on the first page that my attention was drawn to the essence of your work :

“The ratio of A/V becomes larger as the objects become smaller”

Here I would like to comment as follows (and I am not at all a mathematician so if I am wrong please react, I am sure that you will !!!)

Archimedes already made the formula’s for the surface and the volume of a sphere:

A: surface : 4πr²

V: volume : 4/3 πr³

So the A/V ratio is : 3/r

This means that with EVERY sphere the A/V ratio is 3/r.

The size of r is a size to be accorded among us, if you take the size of r as a light year then the NUMBER of A/V is very little compared to the number of a millimetre, which doe not mean thet a dimension has been lost compared to the lightyear distance.

Any way I think you make an essential error in assuming that the A/V ratio is changing with lengths that we are assuming, a sphere will always be a sphere and his surface is made of a plane that has no thickness , so the essential ratio will always be the same, it is like going into a fractal, all the forms stay the same and the basic PROPORTIONS also.

My conclusion is that the assumption you make is wrong, dimensions are not diminishing at certain scales.

However I would like to draw your attention to the Planck scale of 10^-33cm, after this length we cannot measure any more and our universe becomes incomprehensible, In my essay I enter a non causal dimension called Total Simultaneity, but that does not matter now.

What I would like to indicate here is that the Planck scale is perhaps the only sc le that is a real limit to our 4D causal Universe.

However for your information there is an article in NEW SCIENTIST of 25 september 2010 entitled : DIMENSIONS VANISH IN QUANTUM GRAVITY, written by Rachel Courtland, Steven Carlip from the University of California (arxiv.org/abs/1009.1136v1) explains his view about a strange behaviour at small scales that fields ans particles start to behave as if space is one-dimensional, and explains that by the QUANTUM FOAM proposed by John Wheeler in the 1950s, so you see ther is nothing new under the sun.

Keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

As you were mentioned in the FQXi range of Forum updates, I arrived to read your essay.

It was however already on the first page that my attention was drawn to the essence of your work :

“The ratio of A/V becomes larger as the objects become smaller”

Here I would like to comment as follows (and I am not at all a mathematician so if I am wrong please react, I am sure that you will !!!)

Archimedes already made the formula’s for the surface and the volume of a sphere:

A: surface : 4πr²

V: volume : 4/3 πr³

So the A/V ratio is : 3/r

This means that with EVERY sphere the A/V ratio is 3/r.

The size of r is a size to be accorded among us, if you take the size of r as a light year then the NUMBER of A/V is very little compared to the number of a millimetre, which doe not mean thet a dimension has been lost compared to the lightyear distance.

Any way I think you make an essential error in assuming that the A/V ratio is changing with lengths that we are assuming, a sphere will always be a sphere and his surface is made of a plane that has no thickness , so the essential ratio will always be the same, it is like going into a fractal, all the forms stay the same and the basic PROPORTIONS also.

My conclusion is that the assumption you make is wrong, dimensions are not diminishing at certain scales.

However I would like to draw your attention to the Planck scale of 10^-33cm, after this length we cannot measure any more and our universe becomes incomprehensible, In my essay I enter a non causal dimension called Total Simultaneity, but that does not matter now.

What I would like to indicate here is that the Planck scale is perhaps the only sc le that is a real limit to our 4D causal Universe.

However for your information there is an article in NEW SCIENTIST of 25 september 2010 entitled : DIMENSIONS VANISH IN QUANTUM GRAVITY, written by Rachel Courtland, Steven Carlip from the University of California (arxiv.org/abs/1009.1136v1) explains his view about a strange behaviour at small scales that fields ans particles start to behave as if space is one-dimensional, and explains that by the QUANTUM FOAM proposed by John Wheeler in the 1950s, so you see ther is nothing new under the sun.

Keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Hi Wilhelmus,

Thank you for taking the time to review my essay.

First, let me emphasize that the A/V argument was meant as a plausibility argument and not much more to make axiom I, which on its own is highly unfamiliar, more acceptable. The conclusions of my paper rest on the axioms, not on the plausibility argument.

Having pointed that out, let me now attempt to respond to...

view entire post

Thank you for taking the time to review my essay.

First, let me emphasize that the A/V argument was meant as a plausibility argument and not much more to make axiom I, which on its own is highly unfamiliar, more acceptable. The conclusions of my paper rest on the axioms, not on the plausibility argument.

Having pointed that out, let me now attempt to respond to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

A quick addendum because I realized that giving my Planck mass example without further elaboration may lead to misunderstanding.

Currently, the Planck mass has no known physical significance but that is most likely not what you will hear. What you will hear instead is that the Planck mass multiplied by c^2, which is the Planck energy, sets the scale at which we should expect new physics.

But notice, if we had discovered a quantum theoretically important object with Planck mass, we would have pointed out that this is the significance of the planck mass. Absent such discovery, we have to reframe any discussion about the significance of the Planck mass in terms of the Planck Energy.

To me, this is a little like going through a book with a algorithm (say pick every nth letter) and then discovering ex post facto that some of the letter combinations spell meaningful words. It could mean something, but it may (especially in this example, overwhelmingly likely) not.

This is the fallacy I was referring to. The theoretical reasoning backing the significance the of the Planck scale is to me little more than plausible dimensional analysis and it does not help that the Planck scale is many orders of magnitude beyond the access of experimental test.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Currently, the Planck mass has no known physical significance but that is most likely not what you will hear. What you will hear instead is that the Planck mass multiplied by c^2, which is the Planck energy, sets the scale at which we should expect new physics.

But notice, if we had discovered a quantum theoretically important object with Planck mass, we would have pointed out that this is the significance of the planck mass. Absent such discovery, we have to reframe any discussion about the significance of the Planck mass in terms of the Planck Energy.

To me, this is a little like going through a book with a algorithm (say pick every nth letter) and then discovering ex post facto that some of the letter combinations spell meaningful words. It could mean something, but it may (especially in this example, overwhelmingly likely) not.

This is the fallacy I was referring to. The theoretical reasoning backing the significance the of the Planck scale is to me little more than plausible dimensional analysis and it does not help that the Planck scale is many orders of magnitude beyond the access of experimental test.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Hi Armin,

Thanks for your reaction.

I still have some great problems with your A/V ratio and the implementation in your theory.

In your answer you indicate you do not take in view that the A/V ratio is only related to the OUTSIDE world, the internal ratio between surface of a sphere and its volume do have always the same constant whatever the scale of radius you are agreeing upon.

The size of the radius compared to the initial measure , for instance light year or meter, is decisive for the scale difference and so if the relative length of the most little length compared to the biggest is or can be negligible and even vanish(???) in your opinion, in my opinion it does not at all become negligable or certainly does not lead to a loss of a dimension, this is as I mentioned already before only a matter of scale (a mm is very little compared to a light year but does exist in his full length (immense compared to the Planck scale) in all its glory.

You use the word AXIOM in your essay and answer, an axiom is self evident, a logical statement that is "assumed" to be true, some points that you indicate in your essay leading to the assumption of your axiom:

“whether there exists a scale at which volume vanishes but area does not”

“by zero volume and finite area still exists in spacetime”

“any direction in space could vanish at that scale”

“there is a way of postulating a scale at which space vanishes while area is still preserved, --- we assume that at that scale not only space vanishes, but spacetime itself is reduced by one dimension”

“presuming the existence of a scale at which space but not the area vanishes etc”

Hereafter you introduce : “areatime” and you exprees the assumption as . AXIOM I

So I feel free not to accept these assumptions based on the arguments above , it is not scientific, because as you indicate yourself it is a SCALAR quantity, without putting constraints to its shape, and a shape is the same at EVERY scale (fractal). Creating axioms on this base is a misunderstanding.

I like your arguments on page 4, regarding the state of photons, though I do not accept your conclusion that they exist in the so called areatime. (se above).

All the math’s will be all right but you loose me there, the main problem I have is your assumptions that lead to your axiom 1.

I was at the site handle.net but needed an extra code to enter that are only for the students of your university think.

You have my e-mail but here it is again : wilhelmus.d@orange.fr, I suppose you have the PDF text yourself , so if you want you can sent it, it is of course not a must, but I am interested.

Keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus.

report post as inappropriate

Thanks for your reaction.

I still have some great problems with your A/V ratio and the implementation in your theory.

In your answer you indicate you do not take in view that the A/V ratio is only related to the OUTSIDE world, the internal ratio between surface of a sphere and its volume do have always the same constant whatever the scale of radius you are agreeing upon.

The size of the radius compared to the initial measure , for instance light year or meter, is decisive for the scale difference and so if the relative length of the most little length compared to the biggest is or can be negligible and even vanish(???) in your opinion, in my opinion it does not at all become negligable or certainly does not lead to a loss of a dimension, this is as I mentioned already before only a matter of scale (a mm is very little compared to a light year but does exist in his full length (immense compared to the Planck scale) in all its glory.

You use the word AXIOM in your essay and answer, an axiom is self evident, a logical statement that is "assumed" to be true, some points that you indicate in your essay leading to the assumption of your axiom:

“whether there exists a scale at which volume vanishes but area does not”

“by zero volume and finite area still exists in spacetime”

“any direction in space could vanish at that scale”

“there is a way of postulating a scale at which space vanishes while area is still preserved, --- we assume that at that scale not only space vanishes, but spacetime itself is reduced by one dimension”

“presuming the existence of a scale at which space but not the area vanishes etc”

Hereafter you introduce : “areatime” and you exprees the assumption as . AXIOM I

So I feel free not to accept these assumptions based on the arguments above , it is not scientific, because as you indicate yourself it is a SCALAR quantity, without putting constraints to its shape, and a shape is the same at EVERY scale (fractal). Creating axioms on this base is a misunderstanding.

I like your arguments on page 4, regarding the state of photons, though I do not accept your conclusion that they exist in the so called areatime. (se above).

All the math’s will be all right but you loose me there, the main problem I have is your assumptions that lead to your axiom 1.

I was at the site handle.net but needed an extra code to enter that are only for the students of your university think.

You have my e-mail but here it is again : wilhelmus.d@orange.fr, I suppose you have the PDF text yourself , so if you want you can sent it, it is of course not a must, but I am interested.

Keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus.

report post as inappropriate

Dear All,

If we just observer a human life from pre conception, where the child is a dream of the parents, to how the child acquires knowledge of space and time as it grows and how eventually that being dies and looses the meaning of space and time again we would understand the universe. Answer lies with in us.

Singularity is not only relative infinity but it is also absolute equality,

Singularity is not only out there in the universe but also with in here in our hearts.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

If we just observer a human life from pre conception, where the child is a dream of the parents, to how the child acquires knowledge of space and time as it grows and how eventually that being dies and looses the meaning of space and time again we would understand the universe. Answer lies with in us.

Singularity is not only relative infinity but it is also absolute equality,

Singularity is not only out there in the universe but also with in here in our hearts.

Love,

Sridattadev.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Sri,

Always a pleasure to read your posts from the hart, a singulairity in my opinion only exists in our consciousness, like infinities, our life-line is constituated here in the 4D causal universe and forms indeed the moments of our past that we are aware of (remember), there are an infinite number of moments that we are not "aware" of but our consciousness indicates that there is more .

If you read my essay, the explanations are given (also published on THE SCIENTIFIC GOD JOURNAL) but I remember you read it because your answering posts are known to me, I only put this info here so that our friend Armin will also read it.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Always a pleasure to read your posts from the hart, a singulairity in my opinion only exists in our consciousness, like infinities, our life-line is constituated here in the 4D causal universe and forms indeed the moments of our past that we are aware of (remember), there are an infinite number of moments that we are not "aware" of but our consciousness indicates that there is more .

If you read my essay, the explanations are given (also published on THE SCIENTIFIC GOD JOURNAL) but I remember you read it because your answering posts are known to me, I only put this info here so that our friend Armin will also read it.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

To anyone who is interested,

I'd like to mention that I recently posted a paper which gives a conceptual discussion of the framework that I have been working on, and which is hopefully accessible even to those who only understand the basics of quantum mechanics.

It is entitled "A Novel Way of `Understanding' Quantum Mechanics"

It can be found either at Deep Blue, the University of Michigan repository at

http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/86651

or at

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1110.0005

I appreciate any feedback. Thanks

report post as inappropriate

I'd like to mention that I recently posted a paper which gives a conceptual discussion of the framework that I have been working on, and which is hopefully accessible even to those who only understand the basics of quantum mechanics.

It is entitled "A Novel Way of `Understanding' Quantum Mechanics"

It can be found either at Deep Blue, the University of Michigan repository at

http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/86651

or at

http://www.vixra.org/abs/1110.0005

I appreciate any feedback. Thanks

report post as inappropriate

Hi Armin,

I read your article twice now, but the way you are treating TIME is difficult to accept forme, on the other hand you come back to the A/V ratio, that I accept now if you apply it to the scale of our material universe (not in the mathematical way like in Fractals wher you infinitely up and down without any dimension lost or gained). I left also a post on Deep Blue, but I am not sure that it went all right.

Just a thought :

Imagine:

1. a point in an endless universe, no time needed

2. two points in an endless universe : time needed (reference of point a and b, and the time needed to go from a to b, at any possible velocity)

My opinion is that time is emerging so there is no difference in atwo dimensional world with the time in a three dimensional world, you even rotate by a quarter of a circle, really I lost you there totally, perhaps I am not intelligent enough.

best regards and

think free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

I read your article twice now, but the way you are treating TIME is difficult to accept forme, on the other hand you come back to the A/V ratio, that I accept now if you apply it to the scale of our material universe (not in the mathematical way like in Fractals wher you infinitely up and down without any dimension lost or gained). I left also a post on Deep Blue, but I am not sure that it went all right.

Just a thought :

Imagine:

1. a point in an endless universe, no time needed

2. two points in an endless universe : time needed (reference of point a and b, and the time needed to go from a to b, at any possible velocity)

My opinion is that time is emerging so there is no difference in atwo dimensional world with the time in a three dimensional world, you even rotate by a quarter of a circle, really I lost you there totally, perhaps I am not intelligent enough.

best regards and

think free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Hi Wilhelmus,

Thank you for your response. I am using the concept of time as it is used in relativity, but I apply it to areatime. The concept of time in relativity is counterintuitive and even today, there are still many people who do not accept it. As you know, it distinguishes between the concept of coordinate time and proper time, where the proper time is proportional to the distance or interval in spacetime. Because this simple if counterintuitive conception of time explains lot of facts about our worlds with very few additional assumptions ,I do believe that relativity provides a correct description of nature and that includes the way it treats the concept of time.

Really, I have the impression that your problem is with the concept of time as it is used in relativity. I would advise you to first learn it thoroughly, and then if you still do not accept it, at least you know exactly what it is that you are rejecting. If you take this advice and then appreciate how many seemingly disconnected facts about nature suddenly fit together just with this conception, whereas otherwise they would seem to be totally unrelated, you may just change your mind and choose not to reject it.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Thank you for your response. I am using the concept of time as it is used in relativity, but I apply it to areatime. The concept of time in relativity is counterintuitive and even today, there are still many people who do not accept it. As you know, it distinguishes between the concept of coordinate time and proper time, where the proper time is proportional to the distance or interval in spacetime. Because this simple if counterintuitive conception of time explains lot of facts about our worlds with very few additional assumptions ,I do believe that relativity provides a correct description of nature and that includes the way it treats the concept of time.

Really, I have the impression that your problem is with the concept of time as it is used in relativity. I would advise you to first learn it thoroughly, and then if you still do not accept it, at least you know exactly what it is that you are rejecting. If you take this advice and then appreciate how many seemingly disconnected facts about nature suddenly fit together just with this conception, whereas otherwise they would seem to be totally unrelated, you may just change your mind and choose not to reject it.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Hi Armin,

As far as I see it, I have no problem at all understanding time in relativity, it is that I have a problem in understanding your text on page 5 and 6 :

* you are making a difference in the "nature" of time in three dimensions and that in two dimensions, of course it is difficult to design a twodimensional clock, but I think that is not neccecerry because time is "emerging" (in my point of view) and in fact not existing (see also Julian Barbour's PLATONIA : "There is no passage of time, merely a set of unconnected instants, or "nows", In my essay it is the consciousness that is able to form these lines), so in fact from my point of view you are treating time as if it is a real dimension that is changing when the number of dimensions are changing (like in your A/V ratio .

* "Hypothetical objects in areatime cannot have a spacetime history", I understand your view, it is as if the point in the two dimensions becomes a line in the three dimensions (beginning of your text), this is a good mathematical way of representing the extra's that are appearing when you are adding a dimension, only time cannot be treated like thet (I think, and also others) The symmetry you are adding on page 6, by comparing the proper time Ta in areatime with the proper time T of an observer in spacetime and the transformation you think is needed to arrange this idea , including the so called "perpendicularity" (I think you took that from the fact that when adding a dimension the line that was the point is penrpendicular on the point with reference to the x and y axes) but I really doubt this view also because of the reasons that I mentioned above.

* Your idea of actualisation with regard to these diminishing dimensions is very understandable, an endless quantity of possibillities is "falling down" to one (like in a FEYNMAN diagram), but this way of visualisation is not nececerrily the base of a new theory I think. You mention (page 11) "the collapse process is in fact the mechanism by which all of spacetime emerges from spacetime". In fact this is the essence of your view of reality, mathematically it "seems" at the first sight all right, but try to dig deeper and you will see that every comparision has its "LIMITS", it is at these limts,in my humble opinion, that your theory differs in essence with mine, this is not bad at all , because we all are thinking in areas where nor you nor me can do and repeat experiments, you may think that you are more scientific because of the fact that you know more formula's, I fully agree with that, but it is not my goal to become also a "specialist", however I learn each day, and I hope you do too.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

As far as I see it, I have no problem at all understanding time in relativity, it is that I have a problem in understanding your text on page 5 and 6 :

* you are making a difference in the "nature" of time in three dimensions and that in two dimensions, of course it is difficult to design a twodimensional clock, but I think that is not neccecerry because time is "emerging" (in my point of view) and in fact not existing (see also Julian Barbour's PLATONIA : "There is no passage of time, merely a set of unconnected instants, or "nows", In my essay it is the consciousness that is able to form these lines), so in fact from my point of view you are treating time as if it is a real dimension that is changing when the number of dimensions are changing (like in your A/V ratio .

* "Hypothetical objects in areatime cannot have a spacetime history", I understand your view, it is as if the point in the two dimensions becomes a line in the three dimensions (beginning of your text), this is a good mathematical way of representing the extra's that are appearing when you are adding a dimension, only time cannot be treated like thet (I think, and also others) The symmetry you are adding on page 6, by comparing the proper time Ta in areatime with the proper time T of an observer in spacetime and the transformation you think is needed to arrange this idea , including the so called "perpendicularity" (I think you took that from the fact that when adding a dimension the line that was the point is penrpendicular on the point with reference to the x and y axes) but I really doubt this view also because of the reasons that I mentioned above.

* Your idea of actualisation with regard to these diminishing dimensions is very understandable, an endless quantity of possibillities is "falling down" to one (like in a FEYNMAN diagram), but this way of visualisation is not nececerrily the base of a new theory I think. You mention (page 11) "the collapse process is in fact the mechanism by which all of spacetime emerges from spacetime". In fact this is the essence of your view of reality, mathematically it "seems" at the first sight all right, but try to dig deeper and you will see that every comparision has its "LIMITS", it is at these limts,in my humble opinion, that your theory differs in essence with mine, this is not bad at all , because we all are thinking in areas where nor you nor me can do and repeat experiments, you may think that you are more scientific because of the fact that you know more formula's, I fully agree with that, but it is not my goal to become also a "specialist", however I learn each day, and I hope you do too.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Hi Wlhelmus,

On your first point, again I have the impression that the difficulty is with exactly understanding what the concept of proper time in relativity is.

Let me state it explicitly:

In special relativity, in cartesian coordinates, the spacetime interval

[equation] is defined as

[equation]

(you can also flip the signs,but that is irrelevant here)....

view entire post

On your first point, again I have the impression that the difficulty is with exactly understanding what the concept of proper time in relativity is.

Let me state it explicitly:

In special relativity, in cartesian coordinates, the spacetime interval

[equation] is defined as

[equation]

(you can also flip the signs,but that is irrelevant here)....

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Hi Armin,

thank you for your "clarifications".

In SR the flow of time is a. relative to the mass and b. dependant on the relative velocity of subjects. I never met the so called areatime that you introduce (logic because it is your idea). Your formula's above are clear the difference is the dz^2, simply because you treat a dimension less in your so called areatime.

However the essence of your theory is the A/V ratio , this subject we treated together and I understand now your point of view, only I still think that you are mixing up mathematical approach and the material approach. In your exemple you begin with a sphere, but you can also take a cube I think, the surface of a cube is 6 x a^2, the volume a^3, so the mathematical ratio of A/V is always 6/a, whatever cube you take, this A/V ratio becomes very little when we go to the material universe and agree upon a "length". then you can go up and down in the ratio, if I take the Planck length as the minimal length where our physical laws are still working then you get an A/V ratio of 6/ root of hG/2pi c^2 = 6/1.6x10^-35m. In my opinion that is the minimal A/V ratio (as for now) call it the Planck A/V ratio. In my opinion this is the ratio where causality disappears, the arrow of time is no longer valuable, you say that there disappears only one dimension and you enter in your areatime, you still accept time and so the a

report post as inappropriate

thank you for your "clarifications".

In SR the flow of time is a. relative to the mass and b. dependant on the relative velocity of subjects. I never met the so called areatime that you introduce (logic because it is your idea). Your formula's above are clear the difference is the dz^2, simply because you treat a dimension less in your so called areatime.

However the essence of your theory is the A/V ratio , this subject we treated together and I understand now your point of view, only I still think that you are mixing up mathematical approach and the material approach. In your exemple you begin with a sphere, but you can also take a cube I think, the surface of a cube is 6 x a^2, the volume a^3, so the mathematical ratio of A/V is always 6/a, whatever cube you take, this A/V ratio becomes very little when we go to the material universe and agree upon a "length". then you can go up and down in the ratio, if I take the Planck length as the minimal length where our physical laws are still working then you get an A/V ratio of 6/ root of hG/2pi c^2 = 6/1.6x10^-35m. In my opinion that is the minimal A/V ratio (as for now) call it the Planck A/V ratio. In my opinion this is the ratio where causality disappears, the arrow of time is no longer valuable, you say that there disappears only one dimension and you enter in your areatime, you still accept time and so the a

report post as inappropriate

sorry hit a wrong button, so I continue :

you still accept the arrow of time, which I don't.

Both our views are as I think not compatible, but we both are exploring our own "new" reality, I am happy to discuss with you and really it gives me lots of thoughts, there is still one thing that I would like to mention : take a look at the fractal universe, there you can go infinitely up and also down, without loosing or gaining any dimensions, it is in my opinion a typical mathematical universe, where ratio's are fix, so please understand that only when you inroduce a specific "agreed upon" length the ratios are also taking values that are taking avery minimal and also maximal size, it is these "relative" sizes that you and I use to explain our ideas.

best regards and

think FREE

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

you still accept the arrow of time, which I don't.

Both our views are as I think not compatible, but we both are exploring our own "new" reality, I am happy to discuss with you and really it gives me lots of thoughts, there is still one thing that I would like to mention : take a look at the fractal universe, there you can go infinitely up and also down, without loosing or gaining any dimensions, it is in my opinion a typical mathematical universe, where ratio's are fix, so please understand that only when you inroduce a specific "agreed upon" length the ratios are also taking values that are taking avery minimal and also maximal size, it is these "relative" sizes that you and I use to explain our ideas.

best regards and

think FREE

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Hi Wilhelmus,

You said:

"In SR the flow of time is a. relative to the mass and b. dependant on the relative velocity of subjects."

Roughly speaking yes, but that applies to coordinate time. I am referring to **proper time** in my paper. Proper time is invariant, it is proportional to the invariant interval.

Please, Wilhelmus, I almost have the impression that you are...

view entire post

You said:

"In SR the flow of time is a. relative to the mass and b. dependant on the relative velocity of subjects."

Roughly speaking yes, but that applies to coordinate time. I am referring to **proper time** in my paper. Proper time is invariant, it is proportional to the invariant interval.

Please, Wilhelmus, I almost have the impression that you are...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thank you Armin for the exhaustive reply,

perhaps I am more a philosopher as a scientist.

Yes I want to discuss my ideas with others in order to know if I am just crazy or perhaps trying to find new solutions in science, that untill now seems to be stuck.

No my ideas cannot be tested , just like the 10 dimensions of string theory and so on, only my idea is simpler.

Axioms are starting points that can be choosed personnally, I have other axioms as you have, but that gives us stuff to discuss. As a matter of fact I think that each human being has his own unique reality with his own axioms, this is what makes our world interesting but also dangerous, becuase every human also has the tendancy to think that he has the only TRUTH, I don't.

Of ciurse you too have different ideas as the scientific world around you, that is a good thing, but be carefull that you do not get chained in your own ideas that is why I always end my posts with :

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

perhaps I am more a philosopher as a scientist.

Yes I want to discuss my ideas with others in order to know if I am just crazy or perhaps trying to find new solutions in science, that untill now seems to be stuck.

No my ideas cannot be tested , just like the 10 dimensions of string theory and so on, only my idea is simpler.

Axioms are starting points that can be choosed personnally, I have other axioms as you have, but that gives us stuff to discuss. As a matter of fact I think that each human being has his own unique reality with his own axioms, this is what makes our world interesting but also dangerous, becuase every human also has the tendancy to think that he has the only TRUTH, I don't.

Of ciurse you too have different ideas as the scientific world around you, that is a good thing, but be carefull that you do not get chained in your own ideas that is why I always end my posts with :

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Hi Wilhelmus,

You said:"perhaps I am more a philosopher as a scientist."

I like to think of myself in similar terms.

You said:"Yes I want to discuss my ideas with others in order to know if I am just crazy or perhaps trying to find new solutions in science, that untill now seems to be stuck."

I don't think your ideas are crazy, but I do think that in order to be able to be considered as solutions for some of the current problems they will have to be stated in much greater detail and expressed more precisely. And ideally they should make testable predictions.

You said"Axioms are starting points that can be choosed personnally, I have other axioms as you have, but that gives us stuff to discuss. As a matter of fact I think that each human being has his own unique reality with his own axioms, this is what makes our world interesting but also dangerous, becuase every human also has the tendancy to think that he has the only TRUTH, I don't."

Indeed, I agree with you that each of us has his own frame through which to perceive reality and that there is a real danger of mistaking that with an absolutely correct frame.We need to be as vigilant as you are about that.

You said:" Of ciurse you too have different ideas as the scientific world around you, that is a good thing, but be carefull that you do not get chained in your own ideas that is why I always end my posts with :

keep on thinking free"

Well, while I did spend a lot of time thinking about these ideas, this is part of what is required to develop them into full-fledged theories. But now that the basic version of my theory is out I want to work on some other ideas I have as well. I will very shortly post a paper abut the difference between the concept of mass in quantum theory and in general relativity which is directly related to the dimensional theory, and then I have three other papers in preparation (over the next few months) which deal with completely different topics in fundamental physics and philosophy of physics.So yes, I am trying not to chain myself to just one set of ideas.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

You said:"perhaps I am more a philosopher as a scientist."

I like to think of myself in similar terms.

You said:"Yes I want to discuss my ideas with others in order to know if I am just crazy or perhaps trying to find new solutions in science, that untill now seems to be stuck."

I don't think your ideas are crazy, but I do think that in order to be able to be considered as solutions for some of the current problems they will have to be stated in much greater detail and expressed more precisely. And ideally they should make testable predictions.

You said"Axioms are starting points that can be choosed personnally, I have other axioms as you have, but that gives us stuff to discuss. As a matter of fact I think that each human being has his own unique reality with his own axioms, this is what makes our world interesting but also dangerous, becuase every human also has the tendancy to think that he has the only TRUTH, I don't."

Indeed, I agree with you that each of us has his own frame through which to perceive reality and that there is a real danger of mistaking that with an absolutely correct frame.We need to be as vigilant as you are about that.

You said:" Of ciurse you too have different ideas as the scientific world around you, that is a good thing, but be carefull that you do not get chained in your own ideas that is why I always end my posts with :

keep on thinking free"

Well, while I did spend a lot of time thinking about these ideas, this is part of what is required to develop them into full-fledged theories. But now that the basic version of my theory is out I want to work on some other ideas I have as well. I will very shortly post a paper abut the difference between the concept of mass in quantum theory and in general relativity which is directly related to the dimensional theory, and then I have three other papers in preparation (over the next few months) which deal with completely different topics in fundamental physics and philosophy of physics.So yes, I am trying not to chain myself to just one set of ideas.

Armin

report post as inappropriate

Hi again Armin,

It is true that you can give the most grounded answers when you are aware of all the details that are hided behind the essence of a question, the dnager is also to get lost in the details, so in this area of time (21th century) it is quite impossible to know all the details just as it was in 18th century, that is the reason that I am not diving into text books but when I don't understand an expression (sometimes these scientists talk abrakadabra) I go first to Wikipedia an study the thing, it is together with Google a treasure of knowledge. Also I think that just by not loosing yourself in details can reveal the essence that is important for my way of constructing and understanding the "reality".

I hope really that you keep me informed of your future papers, I just bumpted in your latest paper by accident during my search for truth, therefore my e-mail address is

wilhelmus.d@orange.fr

keep on thinking free

and best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

It is true that you can give the most grounded answers when you are aware of all the details that are hided behind the essence of a question, the dnager is also to get lost in the details, so in this area of time (21th century) it is quite impossible to know all the details just as it was in 18th century, that is the reason that I am not diving into text books but when I don't understand an expression (sometimes these scientists talk abrakadabra) I go first to Wikipedia an study the thing, it is together with Google a treasure of knowledge. Also I think that just by not loosing yourself in details can reveal the essence that is important for my way of constructing and understanding the "reality".

I hope really that you keep me informed of your future papers, I just bumpted in your latest paper by accident during my search for truth, therefore my e-mail address is

wilhelmus.d@orange.fr

keep on thinking free

and best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

ps

congratulations with your continued presence on the home page, forum updates, it seems that your ideas have sense (like mine , I also was about 7 weeks there), gives a good feeling isn't it ?)

wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

congratulations with your continued presence on the home page, forum updates, it seems that your ideas have sense (like mine , I also was about 7 weeks there), gives a good feeling isn't it ?)

wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.