Why Universe Appears to Have Only 1 Time and 3 Spatial Dimensions>

I Googled "Top Ten Unsolved Problems In Physics" and found this page...

http://www.oglethorpe.edu/faculty/~m_rulison/top10.htm

In it, it asks: Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions?

Possible answer: That only one 3-Dimensional view can be observed at a time or at once.

I.e. if we could observe all ten+ dimensions we would be omniscient.

?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If we could observe the past, present and future simultaneously we would be omniscient.

Therefore the key to omniscience is time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You appear to be having an argument with yourself. That does not bode well as to the final resting place for this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An argument would assume an arguer, therefore you are wrong.

 

Fine, if you don't like the term argue then you disagree with yourself in consecutive posts. However you want to parse it, it is pretty much just looney tunes.

 

If we could view every single moment in time we could view all ten dimensions and maybe more because each moment in time contains 3 dimensions. One 3-D view at one time constitutes a single moment.

 

Yeah sure, whatever. Have a good day.

 

The rest of the ten spatial dimensions are just copies of the first three in the same sense that natural numbers beyond unity are trivial repetitions of unity combined with the operation of addition. Symbols are tools of finite minds. They do not bestow omniscience, or anything like it to the individuals with finite understanding who need to use them or the rules for using them as an exercise in consistency.

If it were not so, matrix math would avail them little.

It only demonstrates their collective ability to count to three and really mean it. The rest is redundancy.

Sleep well in the cool depths of the cesspool, tattered thread.

 

Yes. Thank you.

Exactly. How else are you going to pass on/ exchange ideas without language? Each word is a symbol and the people who are the greatest wordsmiths are the greatest warriors of humanity.

 

My comment was not intended as a denigration of the language tools by which beings of finite cognition have passed on lesser copies of their experiences and intellect to those similarly gifted. Words are as poor a substitute for reality as is possible. Read all you wish about apples; nothing adequately describe how they actually taste.

I meant only that the tools in and of themselves have no particular meaning or significance outside of that context, particularly in terms of endowing those who use mathematical symbols with any greater understanding of what they are dealing with other than a facility of counting, ordering, and perhaps categorizing ideas which lend themselves to the former activities. Quantum Field Theory is not something you pull out of a hat or out of the group theory associated with Lie groups or even string theory in a manner that provides superior understanding without exerting any effort to understand what it means physically. Among the users of mathematics which describe such things, it is not unusual to find that they think of relativity as mostly an annoyance, and not something they have a real need of mastering as long as there is some other sort of math problem they believe they know how to deal better with.

In the last 30 years, the only way the math associated with relativity has progressed is the introduction of "boost matrices". This is not really much of an advance as much as it is another way to crank the equations and get experimentalists out of their way so they can just go back to doing the more useless stuff they usually do.

During the same 30 years, "Unified Field Theory" has been the holy grail, and the Standard Model was the best math anyone had to try and do that. No one ever gave a passing thought to the idea that maybe fields are better understood if they are NOT unified; which is to say, there actually, physically is more than one such field. When something moves, even at c, it does so RELATIVE to something not moving. Sounds like a minimum of two fields to me. EM seems to have a similar paradigm in terms of Maxwell's equations, electric and magnetic fields. Electric fields are static; magnetic fields result from moving charges. Maybe describing one in terms of the other isn't the way to go. Perhaps "unifying fields" can't be done at all and relativity must be extended to include more than a single quantum field. The evidence is tantalizing, this may actually be the case.

 

This universe has only energy and the dimension of time.

Energy, bound or unbound, may propagate in a straight line (bulk transport of energy requires time) or the bound energy that is matter may be formed by energy that rotates in order to form the bound particles we recognize as matter. This rotation requires NO time. It is simply another mode of propagation of energy. Vectors in this space add relativistically (not Euclidean or Galilean), and the process of rotating them may be complicated, and there may be other modes of rotation within other modes. But adding a velocity of +c to a velocity of -c will always produce a particle that is at rest with respect to c propagating in any direction.

No Lorentz covariance between space and time exists or is required. Time dilation is a sufficient functional description of the universe that does not require complications like space warpage or exotic Euclidean based geometries in a space with no absolute space or time in evidence anywhere. Space IS linear light travel TIME.

It is possible to pump as much additional kinetic energy into bound matter as desired because bound energy has an analog to a linear Doppler shift that assures that the extra kinetic energy becomes the equivalent of additional mass or inertia.

The only absolute space in this universe is at the geometric centers of bound energy of matter.

The only absolute time in this universe is quantum entanglement's instant of "NOW", which is the same everywhere, even though time dilation and the rate at which time proceeds is different at any location there is a gravitational field or where there is relative motion with respect to other propagating bulk energy, bound or unbound.

This topic is now covered more thoroughly in a few other threads here. For the most part, I have tried to confine the theoretical discussions to the Alternative Theories discussion forum rather than Physics and Math, because the supporting math is under development and will no doubt involve others here who helped conceive it in order to help bring such a theory to a successful conclusion.

Anyone who wishes to run with it has my permission to do so.

 

From the perspective of Alternative Theory..

So far so good...

Straight line of what, transporting from one point to another of what....so you are adding one more variable beyond Energy and dimension of time. That violates your first postulate

If we make the EM radiation (Energy) propagate through a circular hoop of fibre optic, then no matter is formed and it takes time. Similarly (this is crude but gives the idea) if I spin a torch at a very high speed, practically making the enrgy rotate, matter is not formed.

Space ?? Not in your original theory.

If I make two light (say from Lab laser or Torch) hit each other (+c hitting the -c), it does not form a particle, leave aside formation of a particle at rest.

Swirls are present everywhere, aren't they ?

So, your theory allows violation of SR ? As much additional Kientic Energy as desired will increase the speed also, or you are saying that the lump will start increasing as you pump in more KE into it. What is doppler shift got to do with increase in Inertia?

So no matter no space ? You are eliminating the concept of vaccuum.

So you are negating the role of observation ? The 'Now' makes sense only if I can observe....No one disputes the screen shot of Universe at any 'NOW', but how will you take it ? Go to the roof top, take a random snap shot of scenery outside, here also there is no simultaneity about the various parts captured in the Photo.

You have brought in both GR (Gravitational Time Dilation) and SR (relative Motion Time Dilation) in one statement.

What is the objective of your theory ? Which part of mainstream you are uncomfortable with ?

 

A more complete explanation requires the Higgs mechanism, which imparts rotational inertia to bound energy as bound energy couples it back to give Higgs that has interacted with it both inertial mass AND SPIN. The same spin together that was predicted to be that of quantum gravity's graviton.

The time dilation effect of gravity derives of this. The bending of a beam of light near gravitating bodies also weakly couples to Higgs in all the directions you would expect of gravity everywhere along its trajectory which is curved TIME, not space. The perfect rotation that is the other propagation mode of bound energy slows down during the interaction and the dimension we perceive as time along with it. The Higgs mechanism is the origin of time, and also time dilation, as far as bound energy is concerned. The effect (time dilation) is even larger whenever relative motion is involved. All SR requires is that for any state of motion, +c and -c vector sum to zero to make a frame that is at rest with respect to local bound energy.

And Higgs Gravity is a done deal.

 

http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/gravity_higgs.html
https://www.quora.com/If-the-Higgs-...nection-between-the-Higgs-field-and-spacetime
The first few relevant hits of a non-ratbag nature for a 'higgs gravity' web search. Not looking good for you again, danshawen. While the OP quickly copped a hiding, you continue to enjoy an almost untouchable status. Do you practice voodoo by any chance? Still, to leave on a positive note - it's good to see, at least for now, greatly toned down recourse to more or less randomly and frequently used SHOUTING UPPERCASE.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I find either people don't read or get salient points without emphasis, and I don't like bold, and italic doesn't even come close to the desired effect.

I am not the source of the finer points of this theory. It was DEVELOPED here and has many contributors on this forum.

I agree with your initial assessment of the idea when I arrived on this forum in June 2014. It has advanced to the point that the description is ready now for supporting math. I have every confidence, it works. The seed that planted what grew here were the ideas of Peter Lynds of New Zealand, who recognized the folly of equivocating an instant of time with a time interval. And also Little Bang, who pointed out that time dilation was a better conceptual idea than space warpage in a universe that consists only of time, linear propagation of unbound energy and rotational propagation of the bound energy that is matter. And the man who started the idea that E=mc^2 and that we are living in a universe that are ENERGY EXCHANGE events, Albert. Other than for quantum entanglement or the simultanaeity of the same energy exchange event viewed from different perspectives, simultanaeity as Minkowsi posited it does not even exist.

I don't actually wish to be associated with the theory, but the Higgs deniers would have none of it, so I crafted a way for it to get developed without further help from me.

Happy Thanksgiving or whatever it is anyone else celebrates this time of year for. For those who this season seem to have little else to be thankful for, consider it a gift. As for myself, I feel as though I was blind, but can finally see.

And finally thanks to Michao Kaku, who so feared the criticism of the idea that Higgs and inflation were linked that he self- censored a May 2013 CBS morning video he had produced on the subject.

 

OK but from my pov and I imagine most others here, it gives a less than flattering impression re your state of mind. Take that as friendly advice.

Wow! That comes as a genuine shock! So you are the visible face, the front man for a collective SF assault on current paradigm? Very well - let's have others show their faces. Apart from the one maybe two mentioned below.

A William Wilberforce moment huh? Alright, Dan, I believe in being open-minded, caveats notwithstanding. So how long before the seriously math intensive theory hits our screens? Like so many weeks, months?

 

How long did it take Einstein? DOUBLE it. This explains much more than anyone, including myself, yet realizes. I am operating under no delusion that I am a savant of physics or anything else. I have only a moderately high IQ to prove that assertion. But I have always had an obsession with physics, and more than a passing interest in the math that supports it.

I'm not familiar with the Wilberforce reference. To me, all Wilberforce ever did was to make a stupid variety of pendulum with a trick moment of inertia that transferred energy back and forth from linear to torsional inertia. (OK, maybe I do get the reference). Maybe it would help to rechristen Lederman's "God Particle" to the "Higgs-Einstein-Wilberforce" particle? Too many syllables; the publishers would never buy it.

Anyone might have expected, the SUSY and String Theory, and QCD communities would have their own ponderable amount of intellectual inertia about something like this. I wouldn't count any of them out yet as being contenders in the physics battle of the millennium just yet. Quantum gravity is far from dead either. This is just a new tool for the old toolbox.

The simple fact is, the Theory of Relativity (both of them) made Einstein's life a miserable wreck. People have more inertia intellectually than is suggested by their puny masses. Have at them if you wish. I'm in no hurry to learn the intimate behavioral mathematical details at this moment, but it will come. In the meantime, we still have all of the tools Albert gifted us.

 

Matt Strassler was not the OPERA physicist who found the synchronization error that led to the superluminal neutrino fiasco, but if that incident were prominent on his resume, would YOU REALLY go along with his assessment that Higgs gravity doesn't exist? Science used to have a shorter fuse on such monumental career mistakes. If you wish to know about the latest research on Higgs and gravity, or Higgs and inflation, "Of Particular Significance" is not the first place I would go to look for answers. Even most of the stuff I wrote about there is rubbish.

 

Hmm....so when you wrote in #15 "It has advanced to the point that the description is ready now for supporting math.", 'ready' needs considerable qualification. Right oh.

Ummm....you may have another William Wilberforce in mind, not the one strongly moved by the former slave trader John Newton who wrote Amazing Grace. One line of which reads: "Was blind but now I see."
Thought you were alluding to that in your #15: "I feel as though I was blind, but can finally see." Seems not. I was a little hazy on the historical details and maybe should have wrote "Having a John Newton moment", but whatever, near enough imo.