[Graeme]

I’d like to post up some links if that is ok – if not then please let me know – or just delete them and I’ll post the content up here fully.

Here’s the start of the D Construction model which itself has links to the main concepts and further explanations of how it explains all of physics within its purview.

What is the D Construction Model? – D Construction Model (wordpress.com)

[Graeme]

Thanks Jerry!

It’s not so much the dimensions themselves that are the atomic particles, but it’s our 4th dimensional time arrow’s referencing of the complete (lower) dimensional time frame of interactions between the zero point particles. Our dimensional frame of reference is everything in regards to how we observe and measure the universe. This not only includes general relativity, but also helps explain it – as all interactions are relative anyway. And when we consider that time itself is just a physical movement in a higher dimension these relative interactions should make more sense (I hope!).

So it shouldn’t matter where the proton is – either by itself or with an electron making a hydrogen atom. And whether that atom is on earth or in deep space it will always appear to us 3 dimensionally as this is our dimensional frame of reference. The only difference from the protons perspective will be the difference in forces it experiences with the proximity, or lack of, to other particles interacting with it. Even within the atom, the proton string will experience the forces of the electron’s 2 dimensional orbit as a strange external force acting upon it resulting in a change in the acceleration of it’s constituent zero point particles oscillating movement together. Similarly with the electron, if it is in deep space it just won’t experience the forces of interaction with other atoms.

What I’m trying to say here is that it doesn’t change how we observe and measure it – we can only do so from our 4th dimensional time arrow’s frame of reference. So whilst these free low dimensional particles might not be interacting and creating higher dimensions themselves that doesn’t change our perspective of them. Also, the higher dimensions have already been created by the existence of other matter within a certain causal distance so however small that interaction might be, it is still a dimensional interaction.

You last point is very interesting as I wouldn’t regard any basic dimensional interactions between objects which are far apart as separate dimensions, even if they are formed separately. However, just because they aren’t different, it doesn’t mean they don’t behave in exactly the same as we need to take the orientation of their time arrows into account. These particle’s dimensions are constructed in different directions, which have big effects on their further relative interactions. The interactions between closely aligned time arrows is much stronger than if they are misaligned, even to the point of non interaction between them. So even if they start misaligned, their natural interactions will compel them to become more aligned. A good example of this might well be how and why the rotation axis of quasars seem to align over vast distances – what we are most likely looking at here is are the alignments of their higher dimensional time arrows which in turn causes a physical alignment from our 4th dimensional time arrow’s frame of reference.

Ok – I think I’ve waffled on enough for now. I hope again this does make some kind of sense from the model’s perspective. As I previously said – this model changes our perspective of reality completely. It’s quite a shift from how we presently view and describe the universe, so it does take a bit of work to chunk through all the differences in perception and interpretation.

[Graeme]

Ooops – I made a mistake in the previous reply as I forgot about the graviton and how string theory already describes gravity – albeit with no actual proof. This is most likely because the graviton itself has to be a 4th dimensional object and simply this cannot exist within our 4th dimensional arrow of time’s frame of reference. It still might be worth investigating though to see exactly what it can describe at that level – although a it’s pretty messy prospect!

[Graeme]

Thanks Jerry for your questions and again this is very useful indeed as it’s highlighting areas that need better explanations.

Firstly, the zero dimensional particles I had indeed heard of several times before, although my memory is a little hazy on this as it was well over a decade, or 3 ago! So I was quite aware of the concept before I started my model. However, when I started my model it was only when I wanted a base fundamental unit to explain all matter that I remembered this concept. And so I applied it and found the explanations that started to arise really started to answer some big questions with logic and clarity – at least I think they’re clear and logical!

As for the questions on existence – as I mentioned before this is a bit of a minefield and I have to be very specific and clear about what I’m referring to when I mention existence. So existence as the model defines it is any interaction that takes place within the purview of our 4th dimensional time arrow. So when I say that 1 and 2 dimensional objects don’t exist – They do exist as these objects from their own perspective. But from our 4th dimensional time arrow they don’t exist as these simple dimensional objects since we reference everything in 3 dimensions. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist at all – it just means that they exist to us only as a 3 dimensional referencing of these more base fundamental dimensional objects. So the basic 1 dimensional string doesn’t appear as a 1 dimensional string, it appears as a 3 dimensional object at the heart of the atom, which is what we call a proton.

The electron orbiting this proton in 2 dimensions doesn’t appear to us as a simple coin shaped interaction, it is again referenced as a spinning object in 3 dimensions. Now this is confused a little by the electron as we can manipulate it it many ways – however, as quantum mechanics explains we have to look and treat the electron in its 3 dimensional cloud, or superposition of all its movement. This is reinforced with the hybrid chemical bonding theory which takes this into account. I hope this helps clear things up a little.

Now this is where I need to clarify and improve on the explanation I gave previously as you’re quite right about how the electron fits in with the dimensional count of 10 for string theory. So it’s probably better if we simply just add up the dimensions for the base particles of the atom, the electron (0 dimensions), the proton (1 dimension) and the neutron (2 dimensions). That makes a total of 3 dimensions, which are then spun in a further 3 dimensions forming the atom. This is all finally referenced or viewed by us in our 3+1(time) dimensional reality, making a total of 10 dimensions. Hopefully this makes more sense than my previous explanation.

Now interestingly if we add the higher 4th spatial dimension to this – which I’ll explain shortly – then it logically follows that each of these particles will also be referenced in this higher dimension also. So simply adding another 4 dimensions to the electron, proton, neutron and their atomic spin makes 16 more dimensions which leaves us with 26 dimensions, which was the initial claim that string theory made many moons ago. Now this could be pure coincidence of course and is pure speculation on my part, but it does answer that puzzle quite nicely.

And if we crank up the speculation another notch and go one higher, then we can add a 5th dimension to all these parts and our own 3+1 dimensional reality we add a further 25 dimensions – which takes us to a very unwieldy 51 dimensions. However, this model predicts that it is here that string theory should find gravity, and thus mathematical proof of the model. Alas this is far beyond my humble ability to do so – so I leave it hear as pure speculation!

Now before I talk about the higher dimensions, I’ll just pop this here to explain how the model explains all the standard particle model particles. The Standard Model Elephant in the room! – D Construction Model (wordpress.com)

However, I’m in the process of updating this as I’ve found better answers which describe the specifics of all the quarks in a more precise way. But the basic up and down quarks are exactly the same – as they simply describe the 1 dimensional time frame of either up movement or down movement of their constituent zero dimensional point particles that make them. At least here the nomenclature of the standard model is quite revealing of the true nature of the particles in question.

So the question of higher spatial dimensional reality – and how we can possibly know it exists is of course a tough one to answer. But the proof lies in how it can explain the very illusive gravity – as well as dark matter and energy. If you follow what the model logically sets out with the smaller dimensions and extrapolate that you’re left with interactions which can quite easily explain these things.

So all dimensional objects interact – and by interact I mean they either attract or repel each other. Remember the zero dimensional objects interacted (attract) to each other and formed the 1 dimensional string object. Another zero dimensional object interacted with this string in the only way it possibly can, in the second dimension. These objects then interacted with themselves again in the only way possible in a higher third dimension. Thus it only logically follows that 3 dimensional objects are interacting in the same way – they attract in a higher forth spatial dimension. This is of course our reality and our dimensional frame of reference in which we view it. However, we don’t just stop here, the forth dimensional objects they form must also logically interact together in the only possible way – in a higher fifth spatial dimension. And it is this attraction that manifests itself in our forth dimensional time arrow reality as gravity.

Now although impossible to visualise properly, however, if we simply take Einstein’s equivalency principle which states that a steady acceleration of a rocket moving through space will have exactly the same effects on any objects inside it as gravity would do if the rocket was simply just parked here on earth – and from the inside it wouldn’t be possible to distinguish between them, other than looking out of the window of course! So very simply what the model is suggesting is that gravity is simply the movement, or acceleration of our reality in a higher spatial dimension.

This is also really neatly explained in Donald Ivey and Patterson Hume’s classic video on “frames of reference” where a ball is rolled across a table in a simple 1 dimensional straight line. Only next though they repeat the experiment and the a mysterious “force” moves the ball in a circular 2 dimensional orbit back to its starting point. We see both the first parts of the experiment from a fixed camera in the room (an internal frame of reference), but next when we see it from a different frame of reference, from overhead – we see that in the second part of the experiment the entire room was rotated. And it is this 2 dimensional movement which we didn’t notice from the initial fixed camera internal frame of reference that explains the mysterious “force” acting on the ball – it is not a mysterious force but just normal straight inertial motion of the ball from the external frame of reference. So all we have to do here is apply the same logic to the higher dimensional interactions to see that from our 3 dimensional perspective, any higher dimensional interaction will result in the same mysterious “force” that is gravity acting on our matter.

This also helps explain gravity’s comparative weakness as we are dealing with much more diffuse higher dimensional interaction. Again rather interestingly, Paul Dirac linked the value of G with that of the mass of the universe in his large numbers hypothesis – which the model does indeed concur with as the higher dimensional objects themselves will simply be made up of the matter of the universe. So it’s completely logical to expect the strength of that force to reflect the matter than makes it up.

I hope that’s helped clear a few more things up – and again, thanks for the questions!

[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]

Thank you Jerry for your response and great questions – I’ll try and answer them the best I can. However, If I may I’d like to first state that I spent the first 9 chapters of the book just on the exposition of the model itself. That’s not to say the model is overly complicated – it’s a very simple idea but it needs a lot of explaining. Because as you highlighted in your first reply this runs completely counter intuitive to our present view and understanding. As such the most difficult aspect of the model lies in this initial hurdle that challenges our present perception of reality – that being of the space-time continuum. The model simply proposes that our dimensions and time are actually the resultant emergent effect of dimensional interactions – and it is these interactions that the model describes in thorough detail.

So moving onto your second response, as I hope this explanation will help answer the first part also – and let’s start with the zero point particles. These are dimensionless objects which simply just are – by which I mean they are the fundamental simplest objects, and cannot be reduced to anything simpler, or changed, or destroyed for that matter. And they hold no dimensional footprint at all – so no matter how much you zoom in on them they are always a zero dimensional point.

Now this has already been proposed in a few quarters that electrons are these zero dimensional point particles, so what I’m proposing here isn’t anything new in that regard. In fact back in 1940 by John Wheeler claimed that all electrons were the same particle because they all have identical properties. Now I’m not suggesting that all electrons are indeed the same one electron – however, the model is suggesting that they are this zero dimensional point particle, and thus all appear to have exactly the same properties.

So the next logical question is how do we get from zero dimensions to one dimension? Well we interact two of these zero dimensional particles together in a simple attractive harmonic oscillation. If we take the loci of all this movement together in a single time-frame it forms a straight line, or a 1 dimensional string if you will. So all we are doing here is viewing this resultant 1 dimensional object as the completed history of the two point particles interaction. This 1 dimensional string is of course the basis of string theory and it is the further dimensional interactions which give it it’s vibrations and as for existing in 10 dimensions, this requires much further explanation which to gloss over here – but basically, these are the different dimensional zones that they interact in, forming the other particles in the standard model. I of course explain this in far more detail in the book and on my website (link below).

Next we just need to look at the dimensional interaction between this 1 dimensional string object and another zero dimensional point particle which forms the 2^nd dimension. This is basically just the point particle orbiting the 1 dimensional string and it is this interactive movement is in the 2^nd dimension. If again we treat this orbit as a time-frame of all of its movement we form a kind of 2 dimensional disc or “coin” as a result. And if we further interact that 2 dimensional object with another object we get this new interaction in 3 dimensions – which simply manifests itself as a spinning coin producing what we call an atom. Although it isn’t technically spinning as all movement is of course a superposition of movements at the same time.

Now if we look briefly at quantum mechanics we can immediately see how the use of these dimensional time-frames of this dimensional interaction appear as the superposition of the electron in its various electron clouds. These clouds are simply the time-frame of the 2 dimensional orbit then spun in 3 dimensions. And the difference in the clouds is reflected in the different possible basic orbit that forms the 2^nd dimension, which explains why these have quantised energy as they can only exist as whole orbits and not partial ones. This also completely explains why we experience the whole determinism/non-determinism issue.

Now if we apply our logic here we can start to see how it can explain matter, energy and time with relative ease. Firstly matter is just the combined dimensional interaction of zero point particles and our referencing of that interaction from our arrow of time (I’ll explain this shortly) which gives the appearance of different particles since they are interacting in different dimensions. And energy is simply the values, or quantity, of this dimensional referencing which can be transferred elsewhere.

Lastly let’s talk about time. As I’ve glossed over this so far as I didn’t want to get bogged down in it too early, so I’ve not distinguished how the model views time. Again this is very counter intuitive and I’m condensing a lot of exposition from the book here so I hope I do this justice.

Now I’ve talked about 0 dimensional interaction forming a 1 dimensional object and this indeed requires time. I’ve also explained about 1 dimensional string interacting with another zero point particle forming a 2^nd dimension – this also requires time. However, both these times are not the same time that we experience. And indeed if we approach this counter-intuitively then I could argue that it is these dimensional interactions that are creating time. The zero point particles interact in the 1^st dimension, meaning that they form a change in a first dimension between them. Thus very simply it is this change that is time. Time is just a change in a higher spatial dimension. When particles interact they are just creating this movement in a higher spatial dimension. And this movement has a directional quality to it – hence why we often refer to an arrow of time, as this describes our deterministic interactions.

So the first dimensional arrow of time describes the initial interactions of the two 0 point particles. The second dimensional time arrow describes the orbit of a 0 point particle around the 1 dimensional string. And the third dimensional time arrow describes the interaction between these resulting 2 dimensional objects (which resembles coins spinning) and lastly, and maybe most pertinently, our 3 dimensional atoms and molecules interact forming a 4^th spatial dimension, which is how we experience time – it is just this change in a higher dimension. Hopefully this should be completely logical as time is often regarded as the 4^th dimension anyway, and Einstein’s famous E=mc2 is an upshot of treating time as a spatial dimension.

Lastly it is the direction of these time arrows which gives us the time-frame referencing of dimensional objects that I described earlier, as our time arrow doesn’t run concurrent with the other time arrows and instead we experience the time frame of this movement rather than the steady flow of our own 4^th dimensional time arrow.

I hope this makes some kind of sense as I know this is a lot to take in very quickly and runs very much against our current views. There is a lot more detailed exposition of all of this in the book, with examples and diagrams to help visualise all of this – and of course it does take a far more thorough approach to what I’ve given here. As I said to begin with – the model is simple yet it challenges our present perception of reality – and as such the arising complexities take a lot of explaining and dissecting to adequately describe what we see and measure in science.

I have also summarised a lot of the book here also for more information here: What is the D Construction Model? – D Construction Model (wordpress.com)

I will also post up claims that the model confidently makes and an actual experiment that will, or will not confirm the validity of the model.