[Mike 5]

M-THEORY – as refined by Turok and others

On my first day or so at Cambridge University as an undergraduate we had a photograph in alphabetical order. Next to me was a bright young man called Neil Turok, who went on to work closely with Stephen Hawking.

Today on British television there was a repeat of a documentary on parallel universe theory with Neil and others, now that he is at the forefront of a particular version of all that. The irony is that many years ago it was Neil who joking said maybe Hegel had all the answers, a view that has never been far from my own view, now that I have evolved my own Mathematics of Everything (Fractal Dialectics). If only Hegel had trained in mechanics instead of theology, he was such a butter mouth.

Anyway, Neil Turok and two others famous in these fields – called Paul and Bert, met at a Cambridge conference on M–Brane theory in 11 dimensions and took the train to London to see a theatre show. On that 1 hour ride these Brains collided to form ideas of Brane Collision, to resolve the ultimate question of what instigated the singularity or Big Bang. For Bert (a pioneer of the 11 Dimensional universe, apparently left out in the cold and now welcomed back by other theroetical physicists), these membranes are turbulent, specifically like a form of Tsunami that damaged the liner Michelangelo in New York Harbour, when Bert was a child. I am personally fascinated by juxtapositions – the apparently random meetings of people and events that develop into paradigms and so on.

As explained in this TV documentary, parallel universes wander through the 11 th dimension like ripples or waves on various membranes that collide to form matter. So time existed before and beyond this universe.

This is surprisingly similar to the ideas known as Human Design Theory. Human Design is a set of apparently esoteric ideas, cognised by a recluse ( who "got this from a Voice"). Human Design claims to be empirically testable by ordinary people in their mundane lives. The basic idea is that this universe is an unborn foetus developing in some kind of womb within realms we cannot know. Human Design also echoes Turok’s ideas and many recent versions of M Theory apparently, by positing a duality instead of a singularity. A sperm and egg, as it were. There is another lovely poetic idea in Human Design, that some of the stars we see were there before the Big Bang. Cute.

Well, there is a lot to stimulate debate and discussion here. But my own view is that we are mistaken to assume that space and time are homogeneous. I am saying the concept of dimension as such is a cultural belief and not real. Dimensions are very efficient for controlling a hostile environment, but dimensions are inventions of our minds all the same. As Sir Martin Rees (Master of Trinity College Cambridge and British Astronomer Royal) explained, we merely assume the space and time are basically like the ocean, and the same in every place, to fit our mathematics. If space and time are different in every place, we have no mathematics to describe it. I have the seed of a mathematics for heterogeneous space and time and it has a totally different structure to numbers. If indeed I have invented such a system, there could be other mathematical systems without the form of numbers we use to define "dimensions" as such. I intend to post details another time if anyone is interested - a finite loop of elements combine cardinality and ordinality using a juxtaposed (dual) notation - there are several ways to do this, provided the elements are finite or recursively generated (split).

I therefore suggest that thinking in terms of 11 "dimensions" presupposes "dimensions" that are all cartesian in some form, and measurable with rulers that are equidistant in some way, that have numbers such as 1, 2, and 3 maybe even 0 and infinity. Clearly nature never had any need for graph paper in designing chicken, egg, nor river nor meteorite. I see no evidence for dimensions that are conceptually mapped onto graph paper in any place nor at any moment of time. I suggest the actual things in particular places and the distinct qualities of time as experienced or witnessed by humans or devices are entirely sufficient to map and distinguish space and time. That is a leap to a different Goedel system, but axioms are there for efficiency and accuracy of results, not to please any priests nor experts.

If there is a valid mathematics without such number forms, and I say there is at least one and possibly many, we simply have not looked for any way way to explain mechanics independently of Descartes and independently of Euclid, then dimensions as such are a restriction to theory that we can dispense with.

Dimensions are presumed to be stable things like graph paper, or "Gaussian" distortions like a Salvador Dali painting of a watch (Einstein’s later work on the "reference mollusc")

There are at least two alternatives to these that I can think of. One is based on rotational geometry, and gives a totally fresh way to think about and replace the concept of "dimensions". The second is dendritic formations like the branching structure of trees and rivers. Or neural networks for that matter. A tree appears to be 20 foot across, but is contained inside a skin as a nested set of left or right branching choices. Squirrels can jump from branch to branch within the space of the tree and yet never be inside the skin of the tree. Particular branches are juxtaposed, others remain distant. Space and time could exist without dimensions in a) a rotational geometry, b) a dendritic or hyperdendritic fractal form, or c) both.

In all three cases the concept of dimension is redundant, and there cannot be 11 dimensions to count, only one overall structure subdivided and recombined. Euclid and Descartes are not gods, but conceptual heroes, human geniuses, and I think collectively our species can move beyond their brilliant esoteric axioms, and if and when we get better empirical results, it will take many of us working together. We do not yet have suitable notation nor the long long years of developed usage to refine workable mechanics in a new model, but that in itself does not change the essence. Dimensions as such, 11 dimensions and so on, assume a Cartesian Euclidean ideal that is possible but clearly not witnessed empirically. Nobody every saw a dimensionless point, zero clearly cannot exist, and infinity cannot be reached, even straight lines are ideals, they simple do not exist outside our man made hegemony.

Right. In summary. I see a lot of potential in the colliding turbulence of skin or membrane but for me, the concept of 11 dimensions is mathematically unjustified if the Euclidean Cartesian concept of dimension is just the view we settled on to facilitate trade and war. The success of the Cartesian concept of dimension in making bullets may have changed human history, but that does not mean it is the best conceptual method to apply to the finer details of reality, at all.

The TV documentary ended with the Japanese American professor who is on all the programs of this type saying the multiverse is one of an infinite range of possiblke universes. Well again, infinity is esoteric. Any mathematics that includes infinity could be seen as fetishism, because infinity is a belief, it is not factual, and not empirical at all. Infinity is merely what we seem to have today instead of God, and it hides a load of errors in our equations similar to dividing by zero if the totality of all there is, is actually finite.

Mike V

Oh yes, the concept of "Parallel" universe is exactly the same error, for if there is no inifinity, parellel actually means ... divergent, or recursively umbilical perhaps... The problem is that at some point our thoughts dissapear up their own passageway. It is one cop out to declare infinity as an axiom, but by Goedel's proof, infinity cannot be measured within a system of serious empirical measurement. The obvious alternative is the circle of 30 World War I soldiers who sit in a muddy field in a circle in a circle on each other's knees. There are conceptual alternatives to infinity and all the basic ideas including "dimensions" that can be counted by numbers - but without numbers everything of course is ultimately umbilical as far as I can think it through.