Peter Plichta writes that: "A concept of 4-dimensional space has been used by scientists since Einstein. This is arrived at by adding the three dimensions familiar to us from sense experience (length, width and height) and the single dimension of time (the Space-Time Continuum). This concept was fiercely disputed by mathematicians from the very start, since space around a three-dimensional body (cm3) must logically be four dimensional (cm4)". Can someone explain to me why space around a 3D body must be 4D.
From that extract, it sounds like this Peter Plichta guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The statement is false.
I suspect the statement is a misprint, since the guy has three or four doctorates to his name. However elsewhere he repeatedly suggests that a 3D particle must exist in a 4D space (NOT including time), as if everybody knows it. I'm trying to figure out what he means. Having just read his own dumbed down (popular) intro. to his work ('God's Secret Formula' - mostly chemistry, number theory and physics) I'm also trying to figure out whether he is a genius, a crackpot or both. He was the first to synthesise an oil from silicone so he must have been sane once. He has a site at http://www.plichta.de/english/index.php in case you're intersted.
Taken the curved space as 3d space then the 4th d is (the) nothing. Nothing surronds something (3d space is a soort of a bubble in nothingness) - seems logical: 0 d 1 d 2 d 3 d 4 d (while 4 d = 0 d (proves that dimensions are curved too))
That's very interesting, it's exactly what I was wondering. Is it scientifically legitimate to treat nothing as being a dimension in this way? Or are you just interpreting his hypothesis? Lethe - He doesn't push the idea of God (in his book anyway) but rather that numbers are more real than mathematicians usually consider them to be. This does lead into the idea of a cosmic blueprint, but he never suggests that that some entity sat down and drew one up. His use of the term 'God' seems to be more metaphorical shorthand than theism. (But I haven't really looked at the website).
RE: Canute My reasoning was: 1/ There was nothing (4th d) 2/ Arisal of something (0 d - point) 3/ Point streched (1 d - line) 4/ Line turned 180 degrees (2 d - plane) 5/ Plane turned 180 degrees (3 d - universe) 6/ Universe expands (4th d contains 1,2,3 d) In such model there must be 4th d for the first 3 ds to exist (if the universe "arised" (it did arise because it expands)).
Both ProCop & Lethe, I think you both are right. At a glance my opinion went to ProCops point. For a 4th d to exist it must encompass the other 3D's. But while he may not be a crackpot, I felt he certainly was a zealout out to prove a point without being over bearing and preachy. He claims as a matter of fact that he is proving we exist by a "Divine Plan". I reject that conclusion on its face without debate. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Re: RE: Canute Well put. Can I ask whether you think that 'nothing' is the medium in which the universe exists, or the state from which it arose, or both, or neither?
Re: Both I don't know why I'm defending this guy but somehow I don't think he is a crackpot. He may be arrogant, conceited, and wrong, but this is not an unusual combination of attributes, even amongst brilliant thinkers. I have not heard him assert that there is a divine plan, just that there are mathematico/logical constraints on existence which can in a sense be called a 'plan'. Thus he suggests that matter (in the form of protons and neutrons) are not created, but exist by virtue of the mathematically necessary nature of infinity. Here is a statement I found contentious and which may highlight his possible crackpottery: "In our contemporary physical picture it is simply accepted that matter is energy in bundles. Because the term 'energy' refers to electro-magnetic energy and this is not capable of standing still - it has no choice but to expand at the speed of light - the notion can be seen as patently absurd." I'm not in a position to judge this para. but it seems overly bold. Any comments?
RE Canute Nothing (4th d) has the capacity to contain Something (1,2,3 d) I don't think it (4th d) to be a state or a medium, it is the basic dimension (eg. comp. the concept of an island in a sea, you have to have a sea as the precondition of having an island while the see doesn't have such precondition to exist...) therefore I believe that the 4th d is obligatory precondition of having 3d space since such (curved) space is comparable to an island. It would be different if the space were not curved ...no 4th then.
Re: RE Canute So nothing is a necessary precondition of 3D space and 3D space arose from nothing? What about the something from nothing problem? (Not arguing - just interested).
What Problem? Canute, 0-------->{+N)+(-N): What problem? Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
RE:Canute We have two entities: Nothing(=not 3d space) n, Something(=3d space) s While (obviously) n is not equal to s, 1/ s>n / means s is endless - false (under the curved space model) 2/ n>s / n is endless - true Since s = 3d and n>s n must have more then 3d otherwise s=n (false) It concludes that something can rise <b>only</b> out of nothing (n being bigger - you canot tear off a sheet of paper a part bigger that the sheet itself) because there is no other possibility. If you see an another possibility, please suggest it.
Re: RE:Canute I certainly can't see another possibility, although most people seem to be able to. In my cosmology n is one dimensional, but then I don't think I mean 'dimension' in quite the same way as you. I would equivalently say that n IS a dimension. I agree with your conclusion, and further conclude that 'nothing' is an impossibility, an artefact of the limitations of our physical senses and our dualistic imaginations, and that what we normally call 'nothing' is actually 'something'. Sorry if that sounds mystical, it's not meant to.
Re: What Problem? No problem with the maths, (but you have to also deal with its equivalent, its other aspect, which is 1-------->(+1/2)+(-1/2)). However it's not very revealing as to what's really going on. My question to Procop was whether we should consider 'nothing' as a medium or as the substance from which we emerged. These are not the same thing. As a medium we can call it emptiness and represent it with a '0'. However if we see it as the ' ' from which we emerged then we cannot call it emptiness without falsifying the 'something from nothing' rule. We must call it 'something' and represent it with a '1'. Both these interpretations of the meaning of 'nothing' are logically viable. They give rise to two opposed schools of thought, physicalism and eternal being-ism, neither of which can be refuted. As all science and logic suggests that 'nothing' has both these aspects we might as well accept it, and try to imagine something that could quite logically have both these aspects at the same time, have the ability to exist in one sense but not in the another. This is why I feel that you need two fundamental equations and not just one, (as I suggested earlier on another thread but didn't really explain). If you think this is nonsense let me know and I'll have another shot at it.
Agree Except for Symantics Canute, Actually we are in agreement. The only difference you decline to call the other aspect of the "Something", "Nothing". Let me explain: I suspect that the "Nothing" which I say is absence of "time and Space", not "Time-Space", is the Chiral Condensate. It has the unique property of appearing to be non existant to us inpsite of the fact that is would seem to be a super solid based on its energy content and the E=mc^2 relationship. i.e. 2E137 ergs/cm^3, enough matter per cm^3 to make hundreds if not thousands more universes as we currently see it. Yet it is transparent to us. So my definition of "Nothingness" is the absence of "Time and Space" from our perspective but clearly there is something out there that isn't physical reality in our universe. It is hard to call it something if it doesn't exist in our universe and doesn't impact our rules of physics. Yet it must be (in my opinion) the stuff "Something" from which the universe has the ability to create material and/or energy which becomes reality and physical in our universe such that we can measure it and are influeenced by its existance. That is it loses its transparancy and becomes real or "Something" in our universe. But until it does it is non existant and hence is considered "Nothing". Hope that clarifies the 0-------->(+n)+(-n) concept. The UniKEF concept requires viewing the Universe and Creation as seperate enities. Our universe is part of creation but all of creation is not part of our universe. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
Let me use the concept of the DvD disk (D). The movie it contains (m) has no mass (is abstract (a string (quantity)) of 1's and 0's). (Something (S)) (Nothing (N)) Let's propose (for the sake of this argument) D=N N contains all (infinity) of (possible) m's. (m's do not need S to exist). n >m (because it contains infinity of m's) m is a 3d (abstract) entity governed by mathematical rules (sort of: if there were a force F in enviroment E it would behave as .....) Consciousness (C) is the capacity to percieve m's. At a point (Big Bang) one m (accidentally) becomes C. C+m = S (3d universe).
MacM, I've explained to you before that your 1/2+1/2=1 is not any scientific discovery, and is just your own way of trying to sound original and smart. However since you don't say a damn thing that is new (and it actually obscures the idea), it is pointless. This is philosophy, not physics.
