[N0B0DY]

Wick,

I tend to understand things better pictorially and the picture I'm getting is light at rest (everywhere) which can possibly choose to pattern itself in the form of 3-d interference patterns that essentially constitute the 3-d configured composite system (the entire observable universe) which is falling through the light. The light that slips through without interference is observed as propagating at c from any of the 3-d patterns.

Your Flatland story is fantastic and you seem to be well-read enough and "long-winded" enough to give me some useful analogies so I can perhaps better picture what's going on exactly. As it stands, I think you'll have to explain the force that is causing the universe to fall, and in what direction, like a gravitational field or something to that effect. Maybe the accelerator examples will shed some light on this for me, because I can only figure there is a type of internal vacuum energy being applied.

Thank you.

[dleviwing]

Hi Wick;
Though I agree with Nobody that you are indeed “long-winded” I see you also have that obsessive thirst for knowledge.

Interpretations of Quantum and Relativity theories are like Alice’s rabbit hole; full of exaggerations and political manipulation that results in foolish nonsense just to get the funding from those who hold the purse. The creative mind is indeed an asset to any discipline including the sciences but I believe many have gone beyond creativity and entered the realms of fantasy.

We read about concepts of space being made up of dimensions beyond our perception like your 2D flatlander story; there are only 3 spatial dimensions; no more, no less. There are however, many terms of measure within those spatial dimensions. The term “DIMENSION” means a “quantitative measurement”. To measure motion we need to include the dimension of time in order to define changes in the positions of objects in space.

Light (electromagnetic radiation) is a wave; not a particle. What you need to ask yourself is: “Is reality made up of many different and unique entities?” “Are electrons, protons, neutrons, and all the other particles made of different and unique entities?” “Is there an entity we can call matter and an entity we can call energy?” Before you get too far down the rabbit hole, ask yourself what you really believe and what you really know. Too many scientist already promote their beliefs as facts; that's why the rabbit hole is so deep.

[Wick]

Here is a longwinded verbal picture for you, Nobody.

You are an observer in 3-space, which is a very calm 3 dimensional expanse of resting light. This expanse of light has no upper surface, no bottom and no edges. It stretches out forever in all directions. There is an up and a down, and a slight gravitational pull in the down direction, but this pull is easily resisted by treading light (which you have learned to do very well and at almost no expenditure of energy).

From your vantage point you notice a two dimensional plane spread out below you. You also notice upon closer inspection a number of protrusions rising from the surface of the plane. Examining these protrusions you find that every living, "flat" organism upon the surface of the plane actually corresponds to what appears to be an intersecting solid--but a solid such as you have never seen before. Instead of being made of matter, these solids, each unique in form, are made of coherent light. The coherent light solid associated with each figure on the plane serves as that figure's consciousness. As such the consciousness of each figure, its 3d light solid, controls the movements of its body on the plane. These movements of figures on the plane are called changes of position.

You also notice that the fundamental matter that forms the flat bodies associated with these coherent light solids (AND the inanimate things around them) is not flat. In fact, from your perspective everything made of matter looks, at the ultramicroscopic level, a bit like a shag carpet, with the fundamental particles rising as minuscule loops above the plane. These loops are interlinked and bound together.

In this state, nothing in Flatland decays (or in other words, there are no changes of state) Durations exist in Flatland (to measure the temporal length associated with changes in position), but time does not exist per se since there are no changes in state, no real beginnings or endings. Figures move about, but they do not grow, age, die or decompose. All figures in Flatland are everlasting. These are the things you observe from your vantage point in 3-space.

Now let's put the plane in motion.

Suddenly you notice the plane accelerating in the down direction. This motion is very slow at first (almost undetectable), but as you measure the plane's accelerating descent you find that it increases with each passing moment and that you have to permit yourself to fall in order to continue your observations. You also find that by simply relaxing and resisting the urge to tread light you are able to keep pace with the descending plane. You discern from this that both you and Flatland are falling at the same rate of speed and it occurs to you that the universality of free fall is true for both small things (like persons) and large things (like flat universes). It also occurs to you that since you are unable to detect the acceleration of your descent, the figures on the plane are also unaware of the speed of their descent. The Flatlanders have no idea that they are falling.

But you also notice that the light which was below the plane of Flatland, is now passing through the surface and causing ripples on the surface of the plane (like tiny stones passing through the surface of a pond). In places where the matter is present in the plane, the light actual brushes past the descending ultramicroscopic loops of matter and causes them to move in a variety of ways--just as a pinwheel whirls when it is dragged through the air (see references to trimobile loops in the attachment of post 20).

In addition to these light interactions, you notice that the ultramicroscopic fundamental matter actually resists the downward motion as it is dragged through the light. Consequently, areas on the surface of the plane where matter is abundant are actually pulled and stretched by the dragging matter in an upward direction, causing both durations and spatial lengths in the stretched area to grow longer. As a result of the upward pull, more matter is attracted upward to places where matter accumulates, such as Flatland's metropolises.

The combination of the warping of the plane and the interactions of fundamental matter with the light passing through the plane leads to changes of state. As the ultramicroscopic loops of matter are pulled, and stretched, and spun, and rotated, and twisted they begin to unbind and unlink, and to bind together and link together in new ways. The matter and organisms on Flatland begin to grow, age, die and decompose. They are no longer everlasting. So time is introduced into Flatland, along with the temporal concept of beginning and ending.

When a life ends in Flatland, the light solid detaches from the plane and enters the 3 dimensional expanse of light where it "finds rest".

Make sense?

[Wick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing [font=Verdana]there are only 3 spatial dimensions; no more, no less.

How can we be so sure? Proving that what we observe exists is a relatively easy thing. But how shall we prove what we cannot observe. I think I stand with Einstein when he said, "I am not a positivist. Positivism states that what cannot be observed does not exist. This conception is scientifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people "can" and "cannot" observe. One would have to say "only what we observe exists," which is obviously false."

Light (electromagnetic radiation) is a wave; not a particle.

Again, how can we be so sure? The status of light has moved from particle to wave to particle to wave so many times in the history of science. Its quite hard to keep track of. Just in his life time, Feynman made a strong argument that light is a particle, he then reversed course and suggests it is a wave. Then he suggested, perhaps its both. I dare not stand upon such shaky ground. Toss me down the rabbit hole, perhaps I'll find the universe in free fall.

By the way, I didn't ask the two questions above (how can we be sure?) rhetorically. If there is firm and irrefutable evidence that there are not 4 spatial dimensions and that light is indeed a wave, I would truly like to hear it.

Thanks for your thoughts! And please write back.

[dleviwing]

Hi Wick;
Your giving me argument of the “Mad Hatter” and a “Positivist” is someone who believes if the numbers work it does not matter what is real. Einstein meant he believed that reality does matter; so do I.

In science it is not until you can observe and measure something that you can say you know. There are many unexplained observed phenomena that are only explained by some theory; that too is not proof of what it is, only that something exists. Worm holes, hyper space, time travel, multiverses, other spatial dimensions, and other such nonsense don’t even meet the observed requirements to even be a phenomena; they do make for great story telling though; they are also the rabbit holes.

The particle concept of light only works with the photoelectric effect as an interpretation of what we observe; just like the concept of light rays are convenient for understanding optics the particle concept is convenient for the quantum unit of absorption and emission of energy of atomic structures. Believe me, I know what light is; I’ve been designing the instruments used to measure it and control it for 4 decades.

The fantasies are far more interesting and entertaining than the physical realities of our existence; be sure you really want the “Blue Pill”; there’s no turning back once you take it!

[Wick]

Originally Posted by Wick I'm going to hold off on describing how particle accelerator experiments might provide evidence for this theory for a day or two. Before I go there, I need to attach some definitions

Here are the definitions I promised:

Present Point: The reconfiguring, temporally dimensionless point which moves along the PF axis (see below) oriented with the past above and the future beneath. Every spatial point in the observable universe lies within the present point, consequently, it represent the configuration of the entire hyperplane at this very moment (assuming that "this very moment" is the moment in which this sentence is read (not written).

Past: The presently completed trajectory of the Present Point on the PF axis. It is not a collection of all past configurations of the universe. No such static chronological collection of past events exists.

Future: The presently remaining trajectory of the Present Point on the PF axis. It is not a collection of all future configurations of the universe. No such static chronological collection of future events exists.

PF axis: The axis of 4-space along which the Present Point falls. P stands for past and F for future. The falling Present Point dissects the PF axis. The PF axis can apply to a particle, to a collection of particles, to a system, or to the whole hyperplane.

Light: Relatively stationary energetic particles filling the immensity of 4-space. Light can be organized or disorganized as it interacts with matter in the present point. Organized, coherent light is associated with consciousness.

Fundamental Particles of Matter: Basic ultramicroscopic particles of four dimensions, dissected by the hyperplane, which link together to form composite matter on the hyperplane.

Interaction Envelope: A region "above" and "below" the present point in which fundamental particles of matter and light reside and interact. This envelope expands to accommodate warping of the hyperplane.

Change of Position: Movement of composite matter in the hyperplane from point A to point B. This kind of change can happen whether or not the hyperplane is moving.

Changes of State: The binding, unbinding, linking and unlinking of the fundamental particles of matter which form composite matter. This is closely related to quantum interactions and only occurs on a moving hyperplane.

Time: The flowing reconfiguration of the hyperplane resulting from motion along the PF axis and subsequent changes of state.

Univercentricity: The persistent assumption that we live in an all encompassing universe incapable of motion through a higher dimension.

[Wick]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi Wick; Your giving me argument of the “Mad Hatter” and a “Positivist” is someone who believes if the numbers work it does not matter what is real. Einstein meant he believed that reality does matter; so do I.

Perhaps if I ever get an avatar, I'll look for the Mad Hatter. Perhaps you have christened me! But in actuality I don't even deserve that lofty title. I know I'm a fool, dleviwing, I have never been a mathematician nor a scientist. I'll be the first to admit I'm whistling in the dark! But there are a lot of scientists out there who are whistling in the dark who don't admit it.

As for what Einstein meant, perhaps you and I will never know. But having just finished the latest biography on him, I have come to believe he meant there is more reality out there than we can possibly observe. He posited that we are fleas on the tail of the cosmic lion and incapable of comprehending the universal whole.

In science it is not until you can observe and measure something that you can say you know. There are many unexplained observed phenomena that are only explained by some theory; that too is not proof of what it is, only that something exists. Worm holes, hyper space, time travel, multiverses, other spatial dimensions, and other such nonsense don’t even meet the observed requirements to even be a phenomena; they do make for great story telling though; they are also the rabbit holes.

Agreed. But proof positive is not the role of science. Science postulates, theorizes and disproves things. Scientists approach truth, but they never assume that they have found it. Poincare and other great scientist suggest that Einstein's theory of relativity was mad. Nevertheless, while that theory has never been proved, it has not yet been disproved. Certainly the day will come when Einstein will be disproved. I trust I will not be the one to usher in that day, but I look forward to spacetime's evolution into whatever comes next. Whatever the case, theoretical speculations are not what we should fear or discourage. We should fear the overly comfortable assumption that we know.

The particle concept of light only works with the photoelectric effect as an interpretation of what we observe; just like the concept of light rays are convenient for understanding optics the particle concept is convenient for the quantum unit of absorption and emission of energy of atomic structures. Believe me, I know what light is; I’ve been designing the instruments used to measure it and control it for 4 decades.

I am grateful that one of your learning and experience would read the drivel above. Thanks for taking the time. I have wanted to ask someone like you to describe the tortuous variations on the double slit experiment that have evolved over the years. Of particular interest to me are the variations in which photons are released, one at a time through a pair of slits. When light detectors located at the slits are turned on the photons generate no interference pattern. They strike the detector behind the screen (usually film, I think) and reveal themselves as a particle. The pattern they form also indicates that they are a particle. But when the detectors are turned off, the photons do create an interference pattern (indicative of a wave), even though each photon is temporally separate and could not possibly be interfering with photons that follow it. Yet even though the photons in the unobserved system act like waves, they behave like particles again upon striking the film behind the slits. Curiouser and curiouser. Experiments like this remind me of the smile of the Cheshire Cat!

The fantasies are far more interesting and entertaining than the physical realities of our existence; be sure you really want the “Blue Pill”; there’s no turning back once you take it!

There is no reality quite so astonishing and interesting as quantum mechanics. The things scientists are observing in experiments like the one describe (badly perhaps) above and those conducted in particle accelerators world-wide. They reveal a world stranger than fiction.

[N0B0DY]

Wick,

I'm alot more tolerant of unorthodox mechanics than most, and your mechanics make sense to me. Yet, I focus on causes and I didn't notice in your responses where the cause for the universal fall comes in. The universe wouldn't just fall downward if no force is applied to it.

A "fall" and its direction is dependent upon other massive objects. Even ToeQuest Member "RascalPuff"'s repellent gravity requires an applied force. So unless I missed this reference somewhere, I can't really see how your mechanics can be applied to your given scenarios.

[Wick]

Originally Posted by N0B0DY A "fall" and its direction is dependent upon other massive objects. Even ToeQuest Member "RascalPuff"'s repellent gravity requires an applied force. So unless I missed this reference somewhere, I can't really see how your mechanics can be applied to your given scenarios.

I suppose I've been putting off your question deliberately. Apologies. I'll admit that I'm not sure about the cause of universal fall. Theologically speaking I might say, "Because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit." But scientifically and philosophically, that isn't very satisfying.

Nor have I ignored the missing cause. The problem is that being unable to observe objects in the fourth dimension, I am forced largely to go on conjecture (not that that has stopped me up until now!!). My gut has taken me down a road that does not require "other massive objects" but I'm not sure what it requires in its place. Perhaps someone out there has some suggestions that will help. Here is what my gut says:

Thus far I have described this falling motion as a long line of descent. I have done this to simplify the concept. I have given no clear indications that the line of descent might be curved. I'll do so now. The crazy thing is, I don't believe this curve is a wide sweeping curve that circumscribes vast stretches of 4-space. On the contrary, I suspect the Present Point's line of descent through 4-space is the slightest of orbits--a miniscule, but exceedingly rapid, undulation which effects the entire hyperplane.

What is the cause of this "miniscule, but exceedingly rapid, undulation?" I'm not sure yet. I do recognize that this missing piece is the Achilles heel of this theory. I'm still thinking about it. Please let me know if you have suggestions.

Now I have promised for three nights to get out some ideas about the Standard Model. Sorry for the delay, but I only have so much time I can spend on the computer. Let me try to crank something out on this subject. It won't be pretty, but hopefully it will get the point across.

See the attached chart with quantities associated with the Standard Model for reference.

The basic particles, called generation one, consist of the electron, the electron neutrino, the positron, the electron antineutrino, the up quark, the down quark, the anti-up antiquark, and the anti-down antiquark. Of these particles, the electron, the up-quark and the down-quark constitute over 99 percent of observable matter. Quarks are always bundled together in groups of two or three, with the most common configuration being two up quarks and one down quark (the proton), or two down-quarks and one up quark (the neutron).

Generations two and three of these particles are generated by smashing electron and quark bundles together in particle accelerators. When the particles collide, they give rise to jets of particles, some of which are much more massive, highly unstable particles, appearing identical to the original particles in every respect but mass. Almost as soon as the particles appear they vanish they vanish and equilibrium is restored with everyday electrons and quark bundles.

The curious thing about the standard model of particle physics is the way we describe what is happening when these more massive particles arise from the energetic collisions. We general say that the original particles annihilate or disappear in a jet of particles. We say that some of the particles in the jet eddy forward in time and some backward in time. We also say that more massive particles arise from the jet, but that they are unstable and quickly annihilate to be replace by generation one particles.

A cartoon I saw two years ago humorously describes how we think of these collisions: In frame one, two tomatoes smash together. In frame two, a spray of pineapples, starfruit, and papaya, etc. arise from the place where the tomatoes collided. In frame three, the jet of exotic fruits collapses together, and in frame four, the two restored tomatoes have bounce off each other and are headed in different directions.

Such a description comes directly from a three-space perspective.

Let's consider it from a 4-space perspective (but again we'll have to use Flatland and 3-space as our model and modify a bit).

In this case, Flatland exists on the surface of a swimming pool. Floating on the surface of the pool is a tiny regular octahedron. The octahedron is constructed of spherical corner pieces made of foam and straws that represent the octahedron's edges. The octahedron floats on the surface on one of its triangular sides, with only a single point from each of the three corner pieces touching the water. Flatlanders viewing this configuration are convinced that what they observe are three points which are somehow bound together by an invisible force.

A child on the edge of the pool tosses another octahedron into the air and it descends upon the octahedron floating in the pool. As this happens, the force of the falling octahedron, causes the floating octahedron to break the surface, causing a larger portion of the corner pieces to be revealed to the Flatlanders. If the force of the falling octahedron were great enough, the Flatlander might perceive even more of the structure of the octahedron. His assumption might be that the thing he is observing disappears and is briefly replaced by a whole number of new and curious things (diverging and converging cross-sections of the straws, the momentary appearance of an irregular hexagon). Quite quickly, however, the octahedron would return to a state of equilibrium, and the Flatlanders would likely observe the restoration of the original particle(s).

This said, the Standard Model represents a three space interpretation of what happens to the particles. A four-space interpretation would suggest that there are not three generations of particles, but that the so-called first generation particles, when pulled through the surface of the hyperplane, exhibit more mass. In other words, all three generations are really the same thing. What's more, some of the less common particles may represent the sliding along cross-sections of the straws. Reaching a bit farther, the search for the Higgs boson in the Large Hadron Collider, may indeed present evidence of something new (i.e. the irregular hexagon), but it can also be interpreted (perhaps more simply) as part of 4d matter's greater structure (the part that does not currently rest on the surface of the hyperplane.

If the 4d interpretation is valid, then the standard model must be rewritten because 4d structure implies that what we thought were independent and fundamental particles, are really part of a larger 4-dimensional structure.

I believe a bright mathematician might be able to determine if these things might be provable. Given the evidence from colliders world-wide, we know the energies that we have applied in particle colliders. We also know what some of the more common results of those collisions have been. By looking at the evidence, and considering this problem from a 4d perspective, we might learn some astonishing things about the nature of the hyperplane, it's motion, the nature of fundamental matter (is it 4d or not?), and the property of time.

[Wick]

Originally Posted by Wick See the attached chart with quantities associated with the Standard Model for reference.

The attachement didn't take. Let me try again.