The Dance of Shiva

[Fredrick]

I welcome your input but don't accept much of what you say - have you actually read my article?

Yes, Felix, I have indeed read your article. I hope that with my not having much additionally to say about it, that you then not automatically consider me to find it incorrect. I can follow your words, and I can agree with what I read. Your visualizations help really well in understanding your delivery. The only part I find incorrect is the excerpt: "Why do we have three spatial dimensions? Obviously less than this number does not lead to a viable reality but why not more?"

Again, I have no beef with and/or because the truth can often be told in a variety of ways, but I do have trouble with the either/or position you take in above. The dimensional reality of our universe can be described in 3D, but is unable to capture all precisely. 2D+ is capable of doing that, but you have to see that 3D in its entirety and 2D+ in its entirety are exactly the same thing. The only way they differ is in conceptually capturing our reality in that 3D breaks down to three directions or divisions, while 2D+ breaks reality down to two fields, indicating 'initial separation' as foundation. There is nothing difficult to understand about that distinction, and also does not require acceptance as if it were a religious statement; it is just another view. Yet the model on which to place your information becomes a much easier fit that way (as I read it, some of your wording is already very 2D+).

[JAK]

... The only part I find incorrect is the excerpt: "Why do we have three spatial dimensions? Obviously less than this number does not lead to a viable reality but why not more?"

Again, I have no beef with and/or because the truth can often be told in a variety of ways, but I do have trouble with the either/or position you take in above. The dimensional reality of our universe can be described in 3D, but is unable to capture all precisely. 2D+ is capable of doing that, but you have to see that 3D in its entirety and 2D+ in its entirety are exactly the same thing. The only way they differ is in conceptually capturing our reality in that 3D breaks down to three directions or divisions, while 2D+ breaks reality down to two fields, indicating 'initial separation' as foundation. There is nothing difficult to understand about that distinction, and also does not require acceptance as if it were a religious statement; it is just another view. Yet the model on which to place your information becomes a much easier fit that way (as I read it, some of your wording is already very 2D+).

Fredrick, I'm liking your perspective. If you shoot a beam of light outward, it scatters into a conical shape - a flashlight, for instance. Depth is clearly there, but I'm not so sure about "height and breadth". If the "flashlight" reveals the truth about a 2D+ world, then please elaborate. The "flashlight" appeals to me. It is "round" which is a repetitous shape in the universe. "Boxes", eh - "cones" I like!

[Fredrick]

Fredrick, I'm liking your perspective. If you shoot a beam of light outward, it scatters into a conical shape - a flashlight, for instance. Depth is clearly there, but I'm not so sure about "height and breadth". If the "flashlight" reveals the truth about a 2D+ world, then please elaborate. The "flashlight" appeals to me. It is "round" which is a repetitous shape in the universe. "Boxes", eh - "cones" I like!

Thanks, JAK, I can definitively use the encouraging words, especially since what I am trying to deliver is truly miniscule compared to all other fantastic scientific information and data we're discussing on toequest. In short, what I deliver is a perspective, a view, and you either see it or you don't.

The problem is that we, in general, tend to accept something as true, and subsequently reject everything else that is in conflict with what we consider to be true. Yet truth comes in more than one way. Especially when the differences are small between two views, we can get aggitated quickly, and leave.

If I open one eye and see a view, and then when I close it while opening my other eye, I will more or less see the same view. I can even kind of see depth with a single eye. But if I have never opened both eyes at the same time, my brain will have trouble understanding what I would then see. The brain would have a data-overload, even when there isn't anything that much more to see because all data is close to the same only 'doubled.' The increased experience of depth is the enhancement of having both eyes open.

You need to understand that the 3D flashlight and the 2D+ flashlight are totally one and the same thing. Only when breaking the flashlight down to its dimensional aspect is a tiny difference noticeable. The flashlight does not change shape, only we and our view of how we 'capture' the flashlight as a spatial experience is different.

In our mind we consider the spatial aspects covered with 3D (which makes us think there is no need to improve the model because all is covered); we can place the beam in a location that has left-right, up-down, and front-back. We are able to "see through" the beam, giving it a nice 'dimensional' effect normally not visible with solid objects.

In our mind, the option to look at this as 2D+ will allow us to still see the same beam, but instead of seeing up-down, left-right, front-back, we now see interior-exterior as the first aspect, and then we can relate it to front-back, left-right, and up-down.

As you can tell, the difference is hardly even noticeable. As a quick side-story: it is almost like the difference between looking at a cookie with a stomach full and a stomach empty; the cookie itself does not change one bit, but in one case it may be somewhat enticing, in the other case it is very enticing. But possibly the difference is still not clear enough?

The difference between 3D and 2D+ is the organization of the parts we hold inside our brain. In 3D we follow the directional lines, and additionally our mind fills in the areas in between as 'captured by the concept.' The center of the beam is basically just fill-in in the 3D concept.

In 2D+, we do not use our minds at all to fill anything in, because all the basics are already covered; our brain has to do nothing additionally except to see it. The center is the central location, while the boundaries tell us where it ends. The beam in its entirety is experienced. The spatial experience is captured faster, quicker because it starts out with a simpler concept: in and out.

Conclusion: 3D is just fine, 2D+ states almost the exact same thing. Yet one points to an origin in duality, while the other does not. One can be linked to our two eyes, both fully valid and operational, while the other captures an outside entity only.

You can imagine Felix' frustration to quickly say okay to this. The difference is so minimal, it is as if there's no difference or only confusion though this additional view on spatial information. To come to a toe, we have to recognize the interior/exterior aspect of our universe as most important, and science is first and foremost an observational (read: exterior) tool. If you get this, you get the essence: the in-out pair of our universe is the spatial aspect; the rest follows later.

I have added these two pictures, one on top of the other, to show the almost shallow difference between them on what Pat mentioned in 'An Idea.' Conceptually, they are the same, but one provides an exterior view (mainly or only an exterior view), while the other automatically delivers an interior aspect as well. The duality is much more visible in the lower picture, in which separation is clearly more pronounced.

[JAK]

... there isn't anything that much more to see because all data is close to the same only 'doubled.' The increased experience of depth is the enhancement of having both eyes open.
... Only when breaking the flashlight down to its dimensional aspect is a tiny difference noticeable. ...
In our mind we consider the spatial aspects covered with 3D (which makes us think there is no need to improve the model because all is covered); we can place the beam in a location that has left-right, up-down, and front-back. We are able to "see through" the beam, giving it a nice 'dimensional' effect normally not visible with solid objects.

In our mind, the option to look at this as 2D+ will allow us to still see the same beam, but instead of seeing up-down, left-right, front-back, we now see interior-exterior as the first aspect, and then we can relate it to front-back, left-right, and up-down. ...

Keep talking Fredrick! I'm not there yet, but this is exciting me.

It's better staying away from the mind, because that is an area that I am over-familiar. Thus, I have the baggage of lots of jargon to confuse the issue. You talk about stereo vision (binocular rivalry) which Christof Koch talks about in his "Quest for Consciousness". Further, everything we conceptualize about nature is a digital creation in our minds based solely upon sensory input. We need to keep our concepts "external" only.

Let me take the flashlight to a grander scale. If you stand outside on a clear night and see the star Regulus, what you "see" is actually a stream of photons slamming into the fovea of your eye. Whether they have traveled a gazillion miles or a couple of inches, we cannot tell just by sensory input. With binocular vision, experience, and integrated scientific knowledge, we deduce the gazillion miles. (However, from an altered state of consciousness perspective, anything might be possible.) Close one eye and move slightly to the left, and you still see Regulus. Stoop down, still Regulus. Drive down the road, still Regulus. The photons are distributed in a conical pattern.

In fact, I suggest the photon wave-packets themselves must be circular upon impact since we sense them in the same manner from any eye or any telescope on the Earth positioned in any manner. Photons are shaped the same whether seen from Canada or Australia and whether you stand on your head or not. The "footprint" of a photon must be circular. However, the shape of the photon must not be ever-expanding in a cone which would prevent lasers from functioning as they do. Thus, photons are sent as a spray from the source outward in a conical pattern but fall individually as circular "raindrops" of light.

The trouble with dimensions and a circular spray is that you could easily quote 360 dimensions relative to your self rather than height and breadth. And my range of motion from where I am is not just "back and forth, left and right". I can move in an infinite array of directions from my present position. My potential for projection as a photon is spherical in nature. My motion is only limited by how my source (flashlight or Regulus) started my journey, which for me is intended as a straight line. (I'm liking this, Fredrick. Am I "singing" this right?)

And if photons leave circular "footprints" and they behave with a wave motion, then they must be shaped like a spring with something spinning around a central attractor. The question becomes, "What is the attractor?"

But I have strayed from the flashlight. The conical light from a flashlight (or Regulus) has an initial angle of projection as well as the projection itself (magnitude or frequency). (Diameter is a myth based upon distance which varies infinitely.) Suddenly, we are close to describing energy as vectors which include only direction and magnitude. Is this all that is needed for 2D+, direction (relative) and magnitude (relative)? So, instead of seeing the universe as blocks and cubes, I am now seeing it as cones and spheres expanding infinitely from their sources.

Fredrick, please use a cone to explain your 2D+ scenario again. Also, please explain your eight bubble diagram as a 2D+ projection of 8 cones or 8 spheres. Thanks!

[Fredrick]

JAK,

You are asking a lot in just one sitting. Information overload is easily accomplished. Let's take just one aspect.

You write very much to the point: "My motion is only limited by how my source (flashlight or Regulus) started my journey, which for me is intended as a straight line."

If we take the sun as source, then our experience of the sun is extremely limited. We are placed in such a manner that we get a 'vertical' 'rainshower' of light from the sun. And we only receive it in the daytime without clouds. In reality the sun provides that shower in all directions of our solar system and at all times. Yet the origin of each photon is not from the center of the sun, but from the outer parts of the sun. We may conceptually consider that location of origin a flat area, though in reality it is not flat in an absolute sense, while we also all know that solar flares exist.

If you take the shadow line of a tall pole in the sunlight, you can see that the shadow line near the base of the pole is sharp, while the shadow 'further up' the pole's shadow becomes more blurry. That means distance provides the photons to disperse. The shorter the distance, the more aligned the photons are. Basically, it tells us that either movement is possible by these photons or that photons do not shower vertically in an absolute sense. Either way, they need distance to express that aspect.

Let's investigate the non-absolute vertical shower:

We can still have an absolute straight behavior per photon if they do not all come from the same spot of the sun. And though in that case the photons come from slightly different directions, the layer of the earth is so incredibly small, and the origin of the sun so far away, that we cannot distinguish a difference over a distance shorter than say 9 inches. Yet with more than 18 inches, we can tell that the waves are not from a single spot, but from an object far away, and though it is a singular object (the sun), the specific photons all originated from a very specific and non-identical location on that sun's surface. It takes about 8 minutes to get here, and each moment in time we receive a layer of photons that did not originate from the exact same spot on the sun.

Let's investigate the wave aspect as source of the patterns we find:

I do not know if you are familiar with the single dimension in 2D+, but it is a static point A and a non-static part (called non-A), that together can be seen as a rod. This is just conceptual. To have an actual object, a second dimension is required (with B and non-B). However, the photon may be that 'entity' that has both dimensions be close to being the same (as materialistically possible in our materialized universe).

I can see two photon versions that would allow for some movement, while also showing the strong central static aspect: A and B in the same spot, with non-A and non-B aligned in the same spot (tail), or A and B in the same spot, with non-A and non-B straight-oppositionally aligned (wings).

I do not like this explanation too much, though I can adjust it somewhat. The length of the rod between A and non-A may be very close to zero. As such, the photon can be that 'entity' in our universe that is closest to only being the static point. In that case, it doesn't matter where exactly non-A and non-B are located, because they would be able to express themselves only minimally, and only over a certain distance.

Personally, I like the first delivery better, because it is rather simple and straight forward, but the 2D+ explanation can be intellectual fun as well. The same is true for flashlight and Regulus, but the sun is an easier subject, especially since we need the expressed difference to grasp origin and point of delivery; this is only expressed in distance when all compenents are aligned well in the right set of properties (source, distance, strength). The shadow cast by a flashlight is weak and does not allow for great distinction. While the distance of Regulus has already created a light bundel that is moving away from Regulus in a most collective way; any photon not aligned just like the others has left the specific bundle already.

[JAK]

...
You write very much to the point: "My motion is only limited by how my source (flashlight or Regulus) started my journey, which for me is intended as a straight line."
...

Let's investigate the non-absolute vertical shower:

...

Let's investigate the wave aspect as source of the patterns we find:

I do not know if you are familiar with the single dimension in 2D+, but it is a static point A and a non-static part (called non-A), that together can be seen as a rod. This is just conceptual. To have an actual object, a second dimension is required (with B and non-B). However, the photon may be that 'entity' that has both dimensions be close to being the same (as materialistically possible in our materialized universe).

I can see two photon versions that would allow for some movement, while also showing the strong central static aspect: A and B in the same spot, with non-A and non-B aligned in the same spot (tail), or A and B in the same spot, with non-A and non-B straight-oppositionally aligned (wings).
...

Now we're cookin'. As I understand you, you are postulating a mechanism allowing for a central factor about which a photon revolves. My goal is to reconcile the conversion of photons into particles (electrons & positrons) and back again.

There are three known flavors of lepton: the electron, the muon, and the tau lepton or tau (or sometimes tauon). Each flavor is represented by a pair of particles called a weak doublet. One is a massive charged particle that bears the same name as its flavor (like the electron). The other is a nearly massless neutral particle called a neutrino (such as the electron neutrino). All six of these particles have corresponding antiparticles (such as the positron or the electron antineutrino). All known charged leptons have a single unit of negative or positive electric charge (depending on whether they are particles or antiparticles) and all of the neutrinos and antineutrinos have zero electric charge. The charged leptons have two possible spin states, while only one helicity is observed for the neutrinos (all the neutrinos are left-handed, and all the antineutrinos are right-handed).
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton

So, where does the electron pick up the neutrino on it's way into becoming an electron? And where does that neutrino go when the electron meets a positron and turns back into a photon?

I suggest that the neutrino is inherent in the photon. It is a part of the photon. And if 2 photons can create an electron (with an antineutrino) and a positron (with a posineutrino), then both neutrinos were part of the photons. In other words, a photon revolves around a pair of neutrinos - a "photon cloud" tied to a neutrino pair.

Could a posineutrino and an antineutrino fulfill the single dimension in 2D+ you mentioned? Perhaps, "A and B in the same spot, with non-A and non-B aligned in the same spot (tail), or A and B in the same spot, with non-A and non-B straight-oppositionally aligned (wings)"?

And back to my "Bill/Mary" analogy, if Aunt Neutrino and Uncle Neutrino get separated in a melee caused by two lasers pointed at each other, then they will quickly find another mate among the loose neutrinos. And the photons quickly jump aboard. Should there be no neutrinos of the preferred "gender" nearby, they give in to their urge to pair-up and grab the nearest neighbor. The "magic" of being a photon is lost, and they fall out of the mainstream as particles. But now they are an "electron cloud" (or "positron cloud").

This brings another question to mind. Is the photon a real manifestation? Or is it just the swirling "dust" created by a pair of neutrinos as they zip through the Aether?

Thoughts?

[Profpat]

This brings another question to mind. Is the photon a real manifestation? Or is it just the swirling "dust" created by a pair of neutrinos as they zip through the Aether?

Thoughts?

My thought is the ether are photons, EMR.

[JAK]

...
My thought is the ether are photons, EMR.

Hard to argue with that!

And are neutrinos simply strings in disguise?

[JAK]

Hard to argue with that!

And are neutrinos simply strings in disguise?

HEY FELIX!! Collapse yourself out of your box and come out and play!

Is any of this stuff that Fredrick and I are blathering about reasonable? Is there a big "BUT" we don't see? Are you warming up to any of this?

This is your yard, dontcha know! Come out and play!

[Felix Schrodinger]

HEY FELIX!! Collapse yourself out of your box and come out and play! Is any of this stuff that Fredrick and I are blathering about reasonable? Is there a big "BUT" we don't see? Are you warming up to any of this? This is your yard, dontcha know! Come out and play!

Hi JAK, Fredrick, Pat

Just back from getting to grips with Fredrick's tome and I'm happy to listen for now. Lots of good stuff but I haven't yet placed it in my context.

I would desperately like to understand the relationship between the electron, the photon and the neutrino.

regards
Felix