Some comments on M Theory and "parallel" universes

[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.

[Guille]

Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, change and space. And you say your math is about change, well, definatelly it enters the set of areas of mathematics if it does study change and is mathematical. But you haven't given us any equation or rule or formula or theorem or lemma or law of your maths. You ahve given us an interesting axiom. But that's all. I'm really curious about this math of yours, that's why I would like to see some of it.

[Mike 5]

OK give me a breather, it's taken a lot for me to post this first step, and I need to find the best way to explain it. Do you have specific questions to guide me to explain it, because for all my bluster, and all the clarity I see inside, I am scared firstly of my inexperience in explaining this, and secondly nervous of the brilliance of others looking to demolish new ideas.

I'm planning two more concrete explanations next. One involves digital audio engineering, firstly because that is the domain where I first developed Fractal Dialectics, and secondly it is an analogue motion of only out and in for a loudspeaker, and so a simplification of more complex motion of fluids and graphical image data processing - but should be applicable in theory to any analogue motion and data.

Secondly there is the recursive structure of a notation for positions in a looped system of finite elements, that in my view is sufficiently like numbers to replace many forms of calculation and I hope provide a full mechanics.

I am too close to all this to express it smoothly at my first attempt. And it is deeply ambitious, but like a virus, the concept grew way beyond my initial application in audio engineering and synthesis. It feels like a mountain inside me even to explain it, so if you do have specific questions, I will do my best.

However it is not maths as we know it - and your post implies maths is number because of your word quantity.

No, Fratal Dialectics is about data, structure, change and space. Excellent list - thank you, although space may be already evident by the combination of structure and change.

Data is the appearance of number or the format of recorded measurement. For Data you have to have a theory of what you are facing, and so here I bridge to places mathematics avoided, but all data is attached to reality by explicit theory, and it is all future compatible and redefinable when new theory comes along.

Data is within a window or range. Data can never be infinite. The tsunami clearly was exceptionally poweful and outside the expected range for data, but in retrospect the tsunami was finite.

The Richter scale resolves quantity into number values by doubling the previous earthquake intensity which adds one to the Richter value, and that is the kind of conversion I am proposing. But I avoid numbers as such by defining some totality and then - arbitrarily if necessarily - cutting that totality over and over into left and right portions, until you have the level of detail that is compatible with your purpose.

Quantity is the axiom I am replacing. Quantity cannot exist independently of real things you are measuring, and to that extent my ideas are lke some kind of antimaths. So, yes, you have to define - arbitrarily if necessary - what you have, and then you choose - heuristically - how to divide the first split. From that point onwards the divisions generally default to mid points or lumps in the data.

Data is lumpy and we want to know about lumps in data. Those lumps are within flow. So I'm looking to discard number and discard quantity as a concept and use the forms within the data as the actual - asymetrical - reference points to replace numbers, but it is still a work in progress because I have not quite resolved the way to know some lump was spotted in the flow of data whereas some other division was just interpolated for balance.

I am struggling to express all this, I appreciate your focus as it forces me to clarify this bit by bit.

The essence remains what will be three or maybe just two "laws" of fractal dialectics, from which the other rules are necessarily derived:

1) all material forms rotate. (therefore anything that does not rotate is not material, and further details on all that)

2) This has got to be something about viewpoints, the incompleteness of a single viewpoint, the stillness of viewpoints, but I also want some expression of opposition, polarity of viewpoints without necessarily restricting viewpoints to pairs of opposites. This second statement needs to expand the first and tie in many many consequences. The "dialectics" will ideally be expressed in this second statement

3) A statement covering recursion, fractal structures, simple bifurcations and curving dendritics whilst leaving a doorway open for neural networks, and addressing the means to denote the left or right choices - perhaps reinforcing rotation as the essence here.

i am kind of randomly mentioning disparate ideas that do I believe form a single structure, but ... there is an underlying idea that is bothering me today, in formulating all this.

Rotation appears to me the essence of our ideas of separateness, which give rise to number and quantity of course. Rotation also gives rise to skin, clingfilm, that conceptually and practically keep this separate from that. I want to leave a doorway as explicitly as possible that although as humans we say this and that are separate, they are divergent and not parallel. By this I mean that conceptually we could trace all things back to some big bang, conceptually, without saying that actually happened, but I am struggling to leave in some reference to these original umbilical linkages that are cut when something rotates independently but a moment before was attached as one thing.

I am sure that flow of words is just confusing. This is a work in progress, and there are elements not yet discarded.

Also this thread started on MBranes and because of other posts and your replies, I opened into Fractal Dialectics as such, but now it feels this is the wrong place to have posted this way.

Ah, Juxtaposition, everything is juxtaposed somewhere like curating a museum.

[mkirkpatrick]

hello again Mike5,goodness me you have been busy,well done,look forward
to more,what I have seen looks really interesting,what is it with sound!
Is it about harmonics! I wait for more.best wishes to you.






kind regards michael.

[Guille]

Mike, I see. It's not a branche or are of mathematics what you have developed, but a new foundation for mathematics. Great. The more new ideas, the better it is for me to create new ideas myself.

I'm developing (slowly) a mathematics not based on the idea of exact quantity. Your's neglects quantity. Mine gives infinite many forms for a quantity, including the present quantity which formal maths uses, and no quantity, yours. Mine is "the maths of all maths" can be said. But it's still in the very begining.

As your ideas are foundational, not base don already assuptions of maths, I can't know how you should present them or explain them. Do it they way you find better, and good luck.

[Mike 5]

This part of the Forum is about String Theory and specifically I posted about M Branes and the collisions between parallel universes.

The central point for this forum is that for me if parallel universes collide, and I like this idea not only through theory, but my old friend Neil Turok is involved and he was the one who got me fired up about Hegel and dialectics. But they are NO LONGER PARALLEL.

The concept of parallel rests on Euclidean and Cartesian ideals, that I consider esoteric. Infinity, for example, the concept of never/always, is to my mind best visualised in the human mind as a loop.

PARALLEL UNIVERSES cannot COLLIDE.

Secondly the wonderful and for me intuitively beautiful idea that membranes are as turbulent as tsunami, well, the whole "parallel" universes and euclidean cartesian model has quietly been discarded now, so why have it at all? Then the idea of 11 Dimensions also evaporates, those dimensions presumed graph paper that is not in the bin.

Gaussian co-ordinate geometry released Einstein from Relativity version I - where he notoriously mentioned FIXED STARS (!!??!!) as the relative structure to put your fixed ruler over and over to measure strictly Cartesian dimensions. Relativity version II melted all the cartesian planes to mollusc or Salvador Dali geometry, with the famous results on gravity and ultimately balck holes.

There is a third version that Einstein never considered, I'll mention it in passing, it can also be Gaussian, but need not be. It is rotational geometry. The fixing of co-ordinates by rotation alone from an original position and a polar axis of apparent stillness.

Now my own work is based in rotation simply because a) rotation is everywhere apparent, truly all material forms rotate somehow from atoms to stars and we rotate on a planet surface that paradoxically is internally cognised as utterly and infinitely and eternally within a stage or screen of stillness. b) rotation makes so many dualities, it is a rich source of grounding for dialectics and makes recursive or fractal dialectics tangible and more easily explained.

I would be interested to see someone else devise Relativity III - using rotational geometry, and my feeling is the gaussian botch would no longer be necessary, the ideas of black holes and singularity would evolve to something very interesting and be seen from a whole new perspective. This would be very interesting work to see, pretty lousy to slog through and to it though, and ultimately, merely academic, I do think the questions today have moved on since the discovery that neutrinos have mass.

I have to say, concerning M Brane theory, which gets resolved only with 11 cartesian euclidean number friendly dimensions, and then the latest theories put flowing waves in the universe fabric and collide "parallel" universes - they are DIVERGENT and not PARALLEL

DIVERGENCE immediately raises the question of dimension in a new way. Divergence is rather like the splitting of a single cell into two, and it raises questions of an umbilical nature.

Let me explain this by analogy. I have cut two umbilical chords in my life, at the birth of my children. It feels rather like cutting through the rubber hose on a bunsen burner.

That act released my children to independent rotation. Otherwise they would be constrained like the dog on a leash or the telephone handset on a coiled cable.

So my interest focusses on rotation as the definition of separation. Separation is the fundamental idea beneath parallel AND divergence.

Now my son is nearly 19 and fleeing the nest - and my mother is really quite old now, and yet, there is some feeling that somehow those umbilical chords are still uncut. Some "dimension" or "realm" unseen and intangible seems intuitively to still "exist" where my son is directly linked to me, and I to my mother. No chain saw nor Kalashnikov can sever that link, and I am experimenting with actions to remove these repressions, for they restrict my movement and my son's movement. Basically I am doing an Ab Fan, acting like a teenager and my son and daughter have to grow up and be there for me in my adolescent confusions, which I failed to have back when.

What if all material forms, separated in our world of light and touch, remain connected by invisible umbilical linkages. Clearly human thought seeks these tramlines and leylines. Do we care that modern architecture is very much like Hitler's architecture. Not until you point out that link and then, suddenly, we adorn the building and fuss about distancing ourselves from the umbilical link to a Bad Man. Can I use the Hindu Swastika as if it had not Bad History? NO way. Clearly Human Thought is not mathematical but umbilical.

Life is clearly umbilical. Technically our DNA originally emerged from some sea slug or simple prehistoric lineage, and as a species we are strangely fascinated to know about all that. DNA RNA unzips - I must point out this is dualistic, left or right separations, the essence of Fractal Dialectics.

And so with wrongly labelled "parallel" universes. If they collide they are NOT parallel. Were they ever? That is the delusion of the concept of "dimension" - it presumes Cartesian Euclidean ideal that we finally discard like the training wheels on a child's bicycle.

If universes are DIVERGENT -ah - this is in fact the essence of Fractal Dialectic theory - the splitting finally recombines and that is a whole new area I call Juxtaposition Theory.

These Divergent Universes did not come from nowhere, that is conceptually esoteric. They resonated back together from originally being one. This is OSCILLATION!

This is sound.

There are harmonies

Now my range of discussion is beyond this part of the forum - the mathematics is better posted in the maths theorems section, and where can I post more about neutrinos and the significance that neutrions could actually be some second form of something like light that we do not yet have eyes to see beneath and into the structures of reality?

[Mike 5]

I am posting ideas that are off this specific M Brane cosmology topic as such over in Maths/Theorems, so the flow continues over there now

[michellemfry]

The thing about parallel in parallel universes is that the two never meet. Is that possible that two universes could exist and yet never meet? There is something here but I'm not quite there yet.

[dustin_archibald]

Sorry Mike, I couldn't find the thread you started to continue this discussion.

The fractals you describe remind me of binary trees; Left or right, only two decisions. Are there only two decisions? It is certainly a possibility based on what we can observe (mitosis being the most obvious; true and false among others).

[harmonygirl]

Mike 5, I'm not sure I follow you about infinity nor about 11 dimensions. I believe that infinity does exist as does zero. (one being the flip side of the other). Zero describes absolute absence and infinity describes absolute presence.
I agree that the concept of dimension (past 3) cannot possibly be Cartesian Euclidean, simply because I don't believe the linear nature of the primary 3 dimensions is repeated. I don't believe time is linear (although we perceive it to be). As the dimensions jump further away from notions of simple mathematical existence, I think it just gets harder for us to conceptualize (like time). I like your idea of rotation, but doesn't it still tie you to a mathematical reality?