An Idea

[Fredrick]

Dictionary: di·men·sion (dĭ-mĕn'shən, dī-)

n.

1. A measure of spatial extent, especially width, height, or length.
2. Extent or magnitude; scope. Often used in the plural: a problem of alarming dimensions.
3. Aspect; element: “He's a good newsman, and he has that extra dimension” (William S. Paley).
4. Mathematics.
   1. The least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the points in a space.
   2. The range of such a coordinate.
5. Physics. A physical property, such as mass, length, time, or a combination thereof, regarded as a fundamental measure or as one of a set of fundamental measures of a physical quantity: Velocity has the dimensions of length divided by time.

I believe this to be true under definition #5

Best,

Pat

Hi Pat, of all explanations, #5 is written in bad English. It should be distance divided by time, not length. The distinction between length and distance is quite minimal, and easily confused. If we weren't building the ToE, we would not need to discuss this at all; we would not consider this inappropriate word use of any importance. Yet we need to be clear when we are talking about the building blocks.

With traditional dimensions, there is no singular. In my ToE, dimensions are actually no longer lengths, widths or depths, but fields, because the flat field is the minimum requirement for a dimension to exist.

I would call the 8 distinctions of QCD directions or distinctions or something like that. That is what I liked about your delivery right away, the filling up of the three directions by 8 blocks. Then, from the center, we have 8 directions moving outwardly, while from the outer lines (the cubes) we have the 6 directions we normally associate with 3D as well.

Though many people speak about strings, and though many understand something actual and possibly even fundamental is being mentioned with strings, that does not make strings being dimensions.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick:



What I like about string theory is that it gives us the building blocks ( and more I think ) for our 3 dimensional reality. This is why I think it is a beautiful theory, it's logical.

The problem of course is that, as we discussed earlier, we'll never see or observe strings directly.

As far as distinction vs dimension I'll continue to use the word dimension. I believe it meets the criteria in definition #5. For me it's more than just a distinction as it has dynamics built within, and it has fundamental physical qualities and quanity. It's like time being referred to as a dimension. The dimension of time. I would call these the dimensions of inner space. Much more dynamic than the spatial dimensions of LWH, and cannot be described using our 3 spatial dimensions. So in my theory there are 3 spatial dimensions, 1 dimension of time, and 8 inner space dimension.

Of course you and others and even myself are free to refer to them as areas, distinctions, domains, fields, membranes, etc.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

This may be of interest to some of you. It's regarding the 3 body problem and the difficulty in predicting. Since there are 3 quarks interacting with asymptotic freedom within the proton/neutron one can see why at the quantum level " chance " governs all.

Look at Henri Poincare's work on the three-body problem. In the middle of the 19th century, scientists struggled to predict the motion of planetary bodies. It was simple enough to calculate the trajectory of one or two planets, but when a third was added into the mix, the equations become complex and incomprehensible. Three was all it took.
When Poincare went to tackle the problem, he ended up with one of the first fractals. He wrote:

When we try to represent the figure formed by these two curves and their infinitely many intersections, each corresponding to a doubly asymptotic solution, these intersections for a type of trellis, tissue, or grid with infinitely fine mesh. Neither of the two curves must ever cut across itself again, but must bend back upon itself in a very complex manner in order to cut across all of the meshes in the grid an infinite number of times....
I shall not even try to draw it, [yet] nothing is more suitable for providing us with an idea of the complex nature of the three-body problem.

With the invention of computers, mathematicians were finally able to draw out Poincare's figures. Here's an example:

So there you have it... When things come in groups of at least three, you get chaos. Whether ocean waves or waves of chaos, three is the necessary threshold. Without a bit of chaos, however, life just wouldn't be worth it. Imagine the ocean with no waves, or a sky with no stars and planets. Chaos may be odd, true, but like a fractal, can also be strangely beautiful.

Best to all,

Pat

[AntonioLao]

would photons absorb other photons

I dont think so. But two photons in phase would have a greater energy content than two photons out of phase. This is the working principle of the LASER.

[Fredrick]

No problem what you describe about your linguistical choice, Pat. In language, we all have the freedom to use whatever sounds we want; it is being heard that establishes the validity of language. No worries, though, I now understand better what you are trying to say, I just can't use the same language.

The one part that is not contained in the image you provided is what I described earlier as the dance of four and the dance floor. The fact that our universe is moving outwardly is important, fundamental. Yet with string I do not hear anyone speak about this in-out aspect that is the most important aspect in our universe.

Nice computer drawing. I agree with you on the fact that the threshold for three is required for chaos (or freedom if you wish). Still, the three can be established by two: one part of energy based on unification, and two parts of the same energetic make based on duality (or multiform realities). In short: the outcome can already be based on a conflicting situation, and therefore be of a dual nature.

[Profpat]

No problem, Pat. In language, we all have the freedom to use whatever sounds we want; it is being heard that establishes the validity of language. No worries, I understand what you are trying to say, I just can't use the same language.

The one part that is not contained in the image you provided is what I described earlier as the dance of four and the dance floor. The fact that our universe is moving outwardly is important, fundamental. Yet with string I do not hear anyone speak about this in-out aspect that is the most important aspect in our universe.

Hi Fredrick;

I'm glad to see you are posting more regularly, as I missed our discourse during this summer.

Actually I used the word domain first and the word dimensions may be confusing as I have no idea if these are the " dimensions " mentioned in string theory.

The important thing is the QCD inner dynamics that the 3 quarks, and the 8 areas, ( gluons ), create.

This to me is more than just the engine of the proton. It is the proton; body and soul ( essence ).

Now my thoughts about strings in/out, which as you pointed out is fundamental to our universe.
To me the strings are what makes the universe expand. It is the out part. Gravity is the in part.

I " IMAGINE " that at the moment of the big bang when gravity was ~ infinity. At that moment the universe burst out in it's most fundamental unit ( a 1 dimensional Planck Length String(s)). This is what was inflating and expanding, this is the ether. When some strings closed, this was the recreation of gravity. Now you have a quark with mass and a center of gravity and therefore gravity. ( these would be free quarks which no one has detected yet )

The open strings I think are dark energy. We'll never be able to see it, but this is what is expanding space and pushing the galaxies further and further from each other.
The closed strings which didn't make a particle I think is the dark matter which keeps our galaxy together.

Just some thoughts,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Thank you for enjoying my being part of your thread, Pat. I sometimes feel I am hogging your space a bit too much. As far as posting more regularly is concerned, that fully depends on the time windows I have (or more accurately, not have).

I like the word domain better, since we are talking about an empowerment that the strings bring along. It is also less regulated than the word dimensions imply, allowing more freedom. Still, that same freedom can also make the 'domains' have less of an obvious nature, even to the point of their nature being obscured.

Furthermore, I understand where you are going with your delivery. Again, I support the idea that the three quarks (plus the electron) are the fundament of matter - at least when viewed from this side of the curtain. The three quarks, belonging to their dynamic environment, help deliver the 8 gluon outcomes. However, the remainder of your delivery is rather filled with uncertainties.

It is difficult to give strings properties, such as their being the entities that expand the universe, when also claiming we will never be able to see them. Why not simplify things? If there is an initial outward bang, and nothing to stop newly created material to continue their path (as classical mechanics will tell us), then who needs strings pushing out matter from each other over distances that are unheard of.

I think we may find more answers if we focus both our views on the beginning of our universe. The outward direction of all matter, and the inward opportunities that exist at specific locations (but not at the overall level) tell us so much already. Why not use this information to come to a completed delivery? Same goes for energy never being lost; it tells the story already. As you know, I even created a visual of the original spatial reality at the time of quarks-and-electron creation. It turned out to be fairly simple.

How do you envision the universe started out? What is the reason we are where we are. I am asking this question, because the cause of materialization can tell us so much about matter.

[Meem]

How do you envision the universe started out? What is the reason we are where we are.

Well, that's the million dollar question is it not? Perhaps it's a question that is best unanswered for it's the purpose which seems to drive life. If the answer is out there, "God knows," it's beyond our understanding.

For what reason would we -not- be here?

(edit)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zGw7...eature=related
from 1:50 - 2:38 could be one side of this.

[dipayankar]

Taking Antonio's input, I really wonder what would be the reaction betwwen two very near binary stars, how would their individual photons react?

Well you may be right Dipayankar.

When a photon hits an electron the energy gets absorbed later the electron may emit a photon.

When a photon interacts with another photon I believe you'll have created wave interference and a corresponding amplification or cancellation of the 2 waves. Much like mixing the lights above, You get a new wave or color.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

...

" How do you envision the universe started out? What is the reason we are where we are. I am asking this question, because the cause of materialization can tell us so much about matter.

..."


"I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details." - Einstein.

Hi Fredrick;

I think Meem's " God knows " is a good answer.

As far as the rest of your text.

"Domains" is fine by me.

Strings are a better description than point particles ( standard model ) which makes no sense. I like the theory of emergence from point, to string, to quark, to proton, to atom.
It follows the math sequence of dimensions, point, line, area, volume, hypervolume, and therefore to me is a logical course of events.
As far as I know there is nothing in our 3 dimensional universe that is small enough to go through that beginning point, ergo, our 3D must have be constructed.

My An Idea essentially is the standard model except some important differences:

1) No 8 gluons, rather 8 domains created from the 3 quarks. Confinement and asymptotic freedom is explained in the 3 rings being eternally confined through a Borromean ring entanglement construct.

2) Electrons are a field in space created by a projection from the proton.

I think that is the main difference between my An Idea and the standard model.

As far as strings = dark energy, and quarks = dark matter, pure conjecture, but I think it is logical.

In some areas like strings and points we have to rely more on logic and less on physical evidence because points aren't physical at all and strings are barely physical.

Just some more of my thoughts.

And yours?

best,

Pat