Reply To: Dimension Construction Model

[Graeme]

Good question Jerry!

So starting with what a dimension is – and actually this is something I have rather glossed over as I’ve rather assumed it’s self explanatory. But you’re right – when I think about it, this too needs to be explained with greater clarity especially as it is a key defining trait of the model.

So a dimension essentially is a direction (or location) that can only be described by its own spatial variable, and not any combination of other variables. For example in a 1 dimensional string object – the only variable (let’s say “x”) we need gives all locations of a point anywhere in that string. But in a 2 dimensional system that single variable “x” is insufficient to describe any location within 2 dimensions – so we need another variable “y” to specify all locations within that system. And similarly in 3 dimensions we need a further variable “z” to denote exactly where every location within that system is. So for any system how many dimensions it possesses is basically the least required variables that are needed to describe any location.

From my models perspective a dimension these extra variables are the result of further interactions in higher dimensions of certain dimensional objects. By which I mean that two 1 dimensional objects can only interact in different direction and thus a higher spatial dimension. This creates a new spatial variable of the second dimension. Exactly the same process happens with the third dimension – which is when two 2 dimensional objects interact, they can only do so in a different direction which requires a different variable – as it is an impossibility to expect perfect alignment of their dimensions. This should be straightforward when we consider the shear scale of interactions, all of which have multiple dimensional interactions on these objects.

For context – when we talk about string theory and its 10 dimensions, this basically means that the maths it uses requires 10 different variables to describe the movement (or vibration) of the 1 dimensional strings in order to replicate what we know as particles which form the atom. Now the real problem here is that it currently cannot explain where those dimensions come from, nor why 10 dimensions or indeed how they interact. It only describes mathematically the relationships between them and that 10 are needed to replicate the atomic world.

Personally speaking, this has been a source of great frustration for me over the years as science has moved further and further away from any real effort in logically explaining this in plain English. And I guess that’s what most of us are here for on this forum, we want to explain reality and how everything works in a way that is logical and makes perfect sense. Which is exactly what I’ve tried to do with my model as I logically explain the 10 dimensions actually come from the combined dimensions of the proton(1), the neutron(2), the structure of the atomic nucleus(3), which are all subsequently finally referenced from our 3 dimensions and time – making 10 total dimensions. Of course these are all fully explained by the model – so this is just the result of the logical progression of the model. Just compare that explanation to the current one which is something along the lines of “they’re curled up on themselves”!

Anyway, enough personal digression there – I hope this has helped explain what a dimension is – it’s certainly something that I might come back to with greater clarity as it might well need even more detailed specifics when explaining it.

As for existence – this opens up a huge can of worms again, but one I do feel can be explained. Essentially I’m treating existence as interactions – I’ve somewhat rephrased Descartes “I think therefore I am” to a more universal “it interacts, therefore it is” so it can apply to any non living (or non thinking) object also. In other words, whatever is physical and we see (or measure, or detect) in the universe is interacting with us in some way. If something doesn’t interact with us, there would be no way of detecting its existence from our point of view, and thus we could claim it doesn’t exist.

So onto the question of how 1 and 2 dimensional objects exist and basically they don’t exist as just 1 or 2 dimensional objects by themselves. They are interacting in our 3 dimensions, which means that the time frame (which is just the complete history of their dimension interactions) of their movement is seen, or referenced, in our 3 dimensional world. So the two dimensional set up of the atom never exists solely as a 2 dimensional object (a coin shape), but as this same object spun forming a spherical 3 dimensional object (as a spinning coin).

Now this does get more complicated as our 3 dimensional, with our additional 4^th dimensional time arrow is our only perspective of how the universe actually functions – so the deterministic interactions of the lower 1 and 2 dimensional objects appear as non deterministic to us as they are interacting in different arrows of time.

Interestingly this draws huge parallels with Plato’s allegory of the cave when he postulates that our view of reality could well be similar in scope as the prisoner’s view of just the shadows cast on the wall by people they never see as living breathing 3 dimensional people. And this is indeed the case, as our view of the universe is in this case very subjective as it is only from our interactive perspective of the 4^th dimensional time arrow. Anything outside of our causal scope simply won’t appear to exist – and yes this actually applies to some of the lower dimensional interactions, which are best exemplified by the electron’s quantum cloud maps as a few of them show regions which aren’t connected. This basically means that the areas between them are the parts of the orbital that lie beyond the scope of causal interactions with our time arrow, and therefore don’t actually exist – from our perspective, but they do exist from their own perspective.

This of course tends to boggle one’s mind somewhat so I’ve invented a new verb tense to help rationalise it. It’s called Exo-Tempus (denoted using an -ix suffix) because it introduces a time frame outside of our experience. So whatever exists in its own right but not doesn’t exist our perspective we can say simply existixes! This helps clear up a lot of the confusion when dealing with existence which I’ve highlighted in this article here: Existence and the black hole of grammar! – D Construction Model (wordpress.com)

So if we apply this to you question regarding the zero dimensional particles existing – the answer is simply they don’t exist by themselves – but they do existix. However, as soon as they start interacting dimensionally they do exist within our reality – which at this point they manifest themselves as a different particle depending on which dimensional interactions they are undertaking.

Hopefully this answers your questions and apologies for the lengthy response here. Funnily enough I’m working on the 2^nd edition now and I will add some of these points to hopefully add more clarity to the model. So thanks again for the questions – please keep them coming!

[Graeme]

Good question Jerry!

So starting with what a dimension is – and actually this is something I have rather glossed over as I’ve rather assumed it’s self explanatory. But you’re right – when I think about it, this too needs to be explained with greater clarity especially as it is a key defining trait of the model.

So a dimension essentially is a direction (or location) that can only be described by its own spatial variable, and not any combination of other variables. For example in a 1 dimensional string object – the only variable (let’s say “x”) we need gives all locations of a point anywhere in that string. But in a 2 dimensional system that single variable “x” is insufficient to describe any location within 2 dimensions – so we need another variable “y” to specify all locations within that system. And similarly in 3 dimensions we need a further variable “z” to denote exactly where every location within that system is. So for any system how many dimensions it possesses is basically the least required variables that are needed to describe any location.

From my models perspective a dimension these extra variables are the result of further interactions in higher dimensions of certain dimensional objects. By which I mean that two 1 dimensional objects can only interact in different direction and thus a higher spatial dimension. This creates a new spatial variable of the second dimension. Exactly the same process happens with the third dimension – which is when two 2 dimensional objects interact, they can only do so in a different direction which requires a different variable – as it is an impossibility to expect perfect alignment of their dimensions. This should be straightforward when we consider the shear scale of interactions, all of which have multiple dimensional interactions on these objects.

For context – when we talk about string theory and its 10 dimensions, this basically means that the maths it uses requires 10 different variables to describe the movement (or vibration) of the 1 dimensional strings in order to replicate what we know as particles which form the atom. Now the real problem here is that it currently cannot explain where those dimensions come from, nor why 10 dimensions or indeed how they interact. It only describes mathematically the relationships between them and that 10 are needed to replicate the atomic world.

Personally speaking, this has been a source of great frustration for me over the years as science has moved further and further away from any real effort in logically explaining this in plain English. And I guess that’s what most of us are here for on this forum, we want to explain reality and how everything works in a way that is logical and makes perfect sense. Which is exactly what I’ve tried to do with my model as I logically explain the 10 dimensions actually come from the combined dimensions of the proton(1), the neutron(2), the structure of the atomic nucleus(3), which are all subsequently finally referenced from our 3 dimensions and time – making 10 total dimensions. Of course these are all fully explained by the model – so this is just the result of the logical progression of the model. Just compare that explanation to the current one which is something along the lines of “they’re curled up on themselves”!

Anyway, enough personal digression there – I hope this has helped explain what a dimension is – it’s certainly something that I might come back to with greater clarity as it might well need even more detailed specifics when explaining it.

As for existence – this opens up a huge can of worms again, but one I do feel can be explained. Essentially I’m treating existence as interactions – I’ve somewhat rephrased Descartes “I think therefore I am” to a more universal “it interacts, therefore it is” so it can apply to any non living (or non thinking) object also. In other words, whatever is physical and we see (or measure, or detect) in the universe is interacting with us in some way. If something doesn’t interact with us, there would be no way of detecting its existence from our point of view, and thus we could claim it doesn’t exist.

So onto the question of how 1 and 2 dimensional objects exist and basically they don’t exist as just 1 or 2 dimensional objects by themselves. They are interacting in our 3 dimensions, which means that the time frame (which is just the complete history of their dimension interactions) of their movement is seen, or referenced, in our 3 dimensional world. So the two dimensional set up of the atom never exists solely as a 2 dimensional object (a coin shape), but as this same object spun forming a spherical 3 dimensional object (as a spinning coin).

Now this does get more complicated as our 3 dimensional, with our additional 4^th dimensional time arrow is our only perspective of how the universe actually functions – so the deterministic interactions of the lower 1 and 2 dimensional objects appear as non deterministic to us as they are interacting in different arrows of time.

Interestingly this draws huge parallels with Plato’s allegory of the cave when he postulates that our view of reality could well be similar in scope as the prisoner’s view of just the shadows cast on the wall by people they never see as living breathing 3 dimensional people. And this is indeed the case, as our view of the universe is in this case very subjective as it is only from our interactive perspective of the 4^th dimensional time arrow. Anything outside of our causal scope simply won’t appear to exist – and yes this actually applies to some of the lower dimensional interactions, which are best exemplified by the electron’s quantum cloud maps as a few of them show regions which aren’t connected. This basically means that the areas between them are the parts of the orbital that lie beyond the scope of causal interactions with our time arrow, and therefore don’t actually exist – from our perspective, but they do exist from their own perspective.

This of course tends to boggle one’s mind somewhat so I’ve invented a new verb tense to help rationalise it. It’s called Exo-Tempus (denoted using an -ix suffix) because it introduces a time frame outside of our experience. So whatever exists in its own right but not doesn’t exist our perspective we can say simply existixes! This helps clear up a lot of the confusion when dealing with existence which I’ve highlighted in this article here: Existence and the black hole of grammar! – D Construction Model (wordpress.com)

So if we apply this to you question regarding the zero dimensional particles existing – the answer is simply they don’t exist by themselves – but they do existix. However, as soon as they start interacting dimensionally they do exist within our reality – which at this point they manifest themselves as a different particle depending on which dimensional interactions they are undertaking.

Hopefully this answers your questions and apologies for the lengthy response here. Funnily enough I’m working on the 2^nd edition now and I will add some of these points to hopefully add more clarity to the model. So thanks again for the questions – please keep them coming!