The Everything of Theory: Matter

[dleviwing]

Whichever way you look at it, there are two separate frames of reference governing two separate kinds of matter. I think that in order to make meaningful comparisons and contrasts between the two, it is an essential pre-requisite to find a common frame of reference.

Brian;
Does our ability to define or measure different behavior and interactions constitute proof of multiple kinds of a fundamental substance or matter? We need to be careful not to mix what we believe with what we know. What we know about opposite behavior and measured terms could very well be the properties of a single physical entity. (the fundamental stuff of the universe)

[Brian O'Donnell]

Brian;
Does our ability to define or measure different behavior and interactions constitute proof of multiple kinds of a fundamental substance or matter? We need to be careful not to mix what we believe with what we know. What we know about opposite behavior and measured terms could very well be the properties of a single physical entity. (the fundamental stuff of the universe)

You're right of course, Dave. I should have said something like 'different manifestations of matter' so as not to narrow myself down too much.
This does not affect the central question in this thread as to how many spatial dimensions we need to incorporate gravity, electro-magnetic effects and the ramifications of weak and strong forces.

[AntonioLao]

Mathematically speaking, infinite number of dimensions can be used to formulate a theory. However, realistically speaking, only two that of matter and energy is more than enough and if the speed of light is unity then E=mc² becomes E=m then only one dimension is necessary for physical reality. But to include the idea of the vacuum then the one and only single dimension is the square of energy E².