Is it pointless attempting to conceive the notion of higher dimensions?

[merlin wood]

So could Bohm actually calculate if the cat is alive or dead??

You are saying there is no measurement problem (I think)?? So can you calculate the outcome from first principles??? Please clarify.

Bohm calculated that there could be a "hidden variables" account of wave/particle duality where the experimental results could be understood in terms of both waves and particles with certain trajectories in motion.

Thus there need not be any superposition of states of quantum objects before they are measured and so no cat in a both dead and alive state before it is observed. You still can't predict the experimental result of Schrodinger's cat experiment even given Bohm's account. But you can say that before you look at the cat it is already either dead or alive.

In understand you blog insofar as a 3dimensional "slice" of an extradimensional (>3dimensional) cause could be oberseved as being "non-local" by observers within the 3 spacial dimensions. But so what??? It doesnt really mean anything.

? I don't understand your meaning here.

Why is an non-local extradimensional cause any more real than an observer within the 3 spacial dimensions???

If you apply your own logic to this then why cant an observer within the 3 spacial dimensions be described as a "3dimensional" slice of an extradimensional cause (which can also be described as the net conciousness of the universe "as one").


Do you see the similarities? I think these two descriptions are far from "fundamentally and profoundly different".

Still don't get what you mean.

I'm basically saying that for matter in any form as atoms, molecules and living organisms to be and remain in its naturally organised form and despite the forces, a distinct nonlocal cause needs to act upon all matter in addition to the forces from (at least two) extra dimensions of space.

And so that, unlike all the forces, the universal action of this further cause can be described as form conserving

 

[Knotted]

I'm basically saying that for matter in any form as atoms, molecules and living organisms to be and remain in its naturally organised form and despite the forces, a distinct nonlocal cause needs to act upon all matter in addition to the forces from (at least two) extra dimensions of space.

And so that, unlike all the forces, the universal action of this further cause can be described as form conserving

If I understand your theory the need for extra dimensions is related to this comparison between the non-local causation of Bohmian mechanics and forces such as gravity, electro-magnetic forces etc.

The differences are obvious, but the similarities are non-existant as far as I can tell, furthermore you talk about the differences but you don't talk about the similarities. So really we are just comparing apples and oranges. I can't see this as forcing any conclusions, especially not about extra dimensions.

Furthermore even if, as you say, three spacial dimensions are problematic because they cannot describe actions that do not vary over distance, then you have the same problem with however many dimensions you choose. Adding extra dimensions might mean that distances are warped and perhaps shorter in the extra dimensional view, but still you will always have varying distances no matter what crazy topology you use.*

I think you will probably object to the above argument by saying that it isn't about distances (or spacial metrics to use the more grown-up term). This is the correct objection in my opinion. But that would just show that you were not talking about space or spacial dimensions in the first place. If anything you are talking about a hidden domain of some description which is unrelated to space/spacial dimensions.

Bohmian mechanics is a fine theory in my opinion. You seriously discredit it by suggesting that it needs extra spacial dimensions. Apart from the grotesque violation of common sense, it is also a grotesque violation of Lorenz invariance. The problem with Bohmian mechanics is that it is not compatable with special relativity, your version is not even compatable with Galilean relativity. You now have special spacial directions which are distinct from other directions, given that you cannot travel in these directions. The three space around us is now absolute.

So to summarise, you really need to drop this extra-dimensional stuff. You don't need it, even if you did it wouldn't solve your problem and to cap it all it's simply horrendous as a physical theory.

*By the way what you could use here is a different metric. However this would not be saying anything about the underlying physics, it would be just about using appropriate mathematics.

 

[merlin wood]

If I understand your theory the need for extra dimensions is related to this comparison between the non-local causation of Bohmian mechanics and forces such as gravity, electro-magnetic forces etc.

The differences are obvious, but the similarities are non-existant as far as I can tell, furthermore you talk about the differences but you don't talk about the similarities. So really we are just comparing apples and oranges. I can't see this as forcing any conclusions, especially not about extra dimensions.

Furthermore even if, as you say, three spacial dimensions are problematic because they cannot describe actions that do not vary over distance, then you have the same problem with however many dimensions you choose. Adding extra dimensions might mean that distances are warped and perhaps shorter in the extra dimensional view, but still you will always have varying distances no matter what crazy topology you use.*

I think you will probably object to the above argument by saying that it isn't about distances (or spacial metrics to use the more grown-up term). This is the correct objection in my opinion. But that would just show that you were not talking about space or spacial dimensions in the first place. If anything you are talking about a hidden domain of some description which is unrelated to space/spacial dimensions.

Bohmian mechanics is a fine theory in my opinion. You seriously discredit it by suggesting that it needs extra spacial dimensions. Apart from the grotesque violation of common sense, it is also a grotesque violation of Lorenz invariance. The problem with Bohmian mechanics is that it is not compatable with special relativity, your version is not even compatable with Galilean relativity. You now have special spacial directions which are distinct from other directions, given that you cannot travel in these directions. The three space around us is now absolute.

So to summarise, you really need to drop this extra-dimensional stuff. You don't need it, even if you did it wouldn't solve your problem and to cap it all it's simply horrendous as a physical theory.

*By the way what you could use here is a different metric. However this would not be saying anything about the underlying physics, it would be just about using appropriate mathematics.

A short argument for a cause acting upon matter and radiant energy from additional dimensions of space could run as follows:

All the experimental evidence indicates that the world experienced in three dimensional space or 4D spacetime consists universally just of its smallest parts and the forces or interactions that can be described as surrounding such parts as the subatomic components of matter.

The forces include that generally called electromagnetism or the charge force that can be desribed as attracting between the subatomic component called the nucleus and the outer component of atoms and molecules called electrons and repelling between electrons (as well as repelling between protons).

Then by also considering that the inner nuclei has been measured to be a very small fraction of the size of atoms and molecules themselves with electrons forming their outer shells, the questons arises as to how the atoms and molecules can be and remain the way that they are while just the charge force acts just as it has been measured and described. And then also by considering the Pauli exclusion principle one can find no details of the charge force to explain the arrangement of electrons around atomic nuclei that account for ithe various chemical properties of matter.

But then from standard quantum mechanics it is found that the electrons can be described as possessing a wave property of behaviour both as freely travelling objects and as atomic components and also as such these components can be described as entangled in composite ot singlet states to account for the Pauli exclusion principle.

Now, by only recognising the action of the forces, the standard model of quantum theory can't account for electron wave behaviour or entanglement by describing any distinct cause acting in addition to the forces. Whereas in Bohmian mechanics in can at least be stated that there is such an additional cause called the quantum potential.

However, Bohmian mechanics has been called a nonlocal hidden variables interetation of quantum physics and so that the quantum potential cannot be described as a cause that can be described as attracting or repelling objects as it surrounds objects in 3D space.

Then if you consider the experimental evidence of long distance entanglement between beams of photons then you can consider that any cause of the measured correlations in these experiments would not decrease or cease with increasing distance between quantum objects. A nonlocal cause of quantum etanglement therefore could not be described a surrounding quantum objects in 3D space.

And this description also applies to any description of the quantum wave as a cause. So theoretically this effect of this wave could extend to any distance around quantum objects and would continually produce quantum wave behaviour across any distance through space.

Ask from where, then, could the quantum potential act? And one can reasonably conclude - and as argued in my blog - that there would need to be extra dimensions of space from where the action of the cause could be described.

So, in general, one can conclude that the 3D universe experienced could indeed consist just of its smallest parts and the forces that surround such parts of matter. But to explain how these parts can be and remain naturally organised and formed into atoms, molecules and also, by implication, living organisms, a cause needs to be described as acting from extra dimensons of space in addition to the forces, and so as to maintain or conserve all this natural rganisation despite the action of all the forces.

 

[Knotted]

A short argument for a cause acting upon matter and radiant energy from additional dimensions of space could run as follows:

All the experimental evidence indicates that the world experienced in three dimensional space or 4D spacetime consists universally just of its smallest parts and the forces or interactions that can be described as surrounding such parts as the subatomic components of matter.

The forces include that generally called electromagnetism or the charge force that can be desribed as attracting between the subatomic component called the nucleus and the outer component of atoms and molecules called electrons and repelling between electrons (as well as repelling between protons).

Fine up to here.

Then by also considering that the inner nuclei has been measured to be a very small fraction of the size of atoms and molecules themselves with electrons forming their outer shells, the questons arises as to how the atoms and molecules can be and remain the way that they are while just the charge force acts just as it has been measured and described. And then also by considering the Pauli exclusion principle one can find no details of the charge force to explain the arrangement of electrons around atomic nuclei that account for ithe various chemical properties of matter.

I'll take your word for this.

But then from standard quantum mechanics it is found that the electrons can be described as possessing a wave property of behaviour both as freely travelling objects and as atomic components and also as such these components can be described as entangled in composite ot singlet states to account for the Pauli exclusion principle.

Fine.

Now, by only recognising the action of the forces, the standard model of quantum theory can't account for electron wave behaviour or entanglement by describing any distinct cause acting in addition to the forces. Whereas in Bohmian mechanics in can at least be stated that there is such an additional cause called the quantum potential.

First sentence is highly debatable, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument.

Second sentence fine, but note that Bohmian mecanics can be stated without the quantum potential theory.

However, Bohmian mechanics has been called a nonlocal hidden variables interetation of quantum physics and so that the quantum potential cannot be described as a cause that can be described as attracting or repelling objects as it surrounds objects in 3D space.

Here's the first real sign of trouble. Firstly if something attracts or repells ie. it causes a mass to accelerate, then it is a force. You seem to be avoiding saying that the quantum potential induces a force but at the same time you are effectively saying that it does. I'll have to look up how quantum potential operates in Bohmian mechanics.

Then if you consider the experimental evidence of long distance entanglement between beams of photons then you can consider that any cause of the measured correlations in these experiments would not decrease or cease with increasing distance between quantum objects. A nonlocal cause of quantum etanglement therefore could not be described a surrounding quantum objects in 3D space.

And this description also applies to any description of the quantum wave as a cause. So theoretically this effect of this wave could extend to any distance around quantum objects and would continually produce quantum wave behaviour across any distance through space.

Debatable but I'm inclined to agree. In any case I'll agree for the sake of argument.

Ask from where, then, could the quantum potential act? And one can reasonably conclude - and as argued in my blog - that there would need to be extra dimensions of space from where the action of the cause could be described.

So you have not put forward an argument here? I've read the argument in the blog and wasn't convinced for the reasons stated in my previous post!

So, in general, one can conclude that the 3D universe experienced could indeed consist just of its smallest parts and the forces that surround such parts of matter. But to explain how these parts can be and remain naturally organised and formed into atoms, molecules and also, by implication, living organisms, a cause needs to be described as acting from extra dimensons of space in addition to the forces, and so as to maintain or conserve all this natural rganisation despite the action of all the forces.

Why can't the explanation use 3D space?

To put it more pointedly I'll assume for the sake of argument that this causal action needs a special domain or realm but I will not beg the question by calling the domain or realm 'extra spacial dimensions'. What properties does this domain need to have? Does it have any properties in common with ordinary space? Does our description of it effect our notions of space in any way or vice versa? Isn't describing it as 'extra spacial dimensions' simply confusing the issue?

Mathematically your domain could be described as a graph. Basically it says that two particles are either causally connected (ie. entangled) or they are not. This graph will not have 'dimensions' in any normal sense - its just not that sort of thing. It could however be embedded in 3-space with its wires getting crossed. Maybe its just embedded in our ordinary 3-space?

In short adding extra spatial dimensions is a horrible thing to do. String theorists do it, but only because they are forced to. The thing that forces them is not that they need to locate something hidden (if its truly hidden then we would not know about it or need to fuss about it!!) but that they need the right sort of symmetry. They resolve the obvious problems this creates by making the extra dimensions small and curled up where nobody would notice them.

On the other hand you seem to be creating a problem for yourself for no good reason, you then resolve the problem by changing the nature of the problem. Your blog states that the action does not operate in these extra dimensions as a normal force. Why not just skip the extra dimensions and say that the action operates differently but within normal space-time. It saying the same thing but without the contortions.

 

[merlin wood]

Fine up to here.



I'll take your word for this.



Fine.



First sentence is highly debatable, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument.

Second sentence fine, but note that Bohmian mecanics can be stated without the quantum potential theory.



Here's the first real sign of trouble. Firstly if something attracts or repells ie. it causes a mass to accelerate, then it is a force. You seem to be avoiding saying that the quantum potential induces a force but at the same time you are effectively saying that it does. I'll have to look up how quantum potential operates in Bohmian mechanics.



Debatable but I'm inclined to agree. In any case I'll agree for the sake of argument.



So you have not put forward an argument here? I've read the argument in the blog and wasn't convinced for the reasons stated in my previous post!



Why can't the explanation use 3D space?

To put it more pointedly I'll assume for the sake of argument that this causal action needs a special domain or realm but I will not beg the question by calling the domain or realm 'extra spacial dimensions'. What properties does this domain need to have? Does it have any properties in common with ordinary space? Does our description of it effect our notions of space in any way or vice versa? Isn't describing it as 'extra spacial dimensions' simply confusing the issue?



Mathematically your domain could be described as a graph. Basically it says that two particles are either causally connected (ie. entangled) or they are not. This graph will not have 'dimensions' in any normal sense - its just not that sort of thing. It could however be embedded in 3-space with its wires getting crossed. Maybe its just embedded in our ordinary 3-space?

In short adding extra spatial dimensions is a horrible thing to do. String theorists do it, but only because they are forced to. The thing that forces them is not that they need to locate something hidden (if its truly hidden then we would not know about it or need to fuss about it!!) but that they need the right sort of symmetry. They resolve the obvious problems this creates by making the extra dimensions small and curled up where nobody would notice them.

On the other hand you seem to be creating a problem for yourself for no good reason, you then resolve the problem by changing the nature of the problem. Your blog states that the action does not operate in these extra dimensions as a normal force. Why not just skip the extra dimensions and say that the action operates differently but within normal space-time. It saying the same thing but without the contortions.

Really I've had such arguments so many times before and as I've also said so many times before you have to read the whole of the blog argument carefully to see how a cause acting from extra spatial dimensions works both in relation to the quantum physics and in relation to the consciousness and mind/body problems I describe in Section 4 *Evidence of living organisms.

If you still can't get the argument even so then I don't think I can help you here.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

yes, everything is pointless. still v interesting tho!

 

[Knotted]

Really I've had such arguments so many times before and as I've also said so many times before you have to read the whole of the blog argument carefully to see how a cause acting from extra spatial dimensions works both in relation to the quantum physics and in relation to the consciousness and mind/body problems I describe in Section 4 *Evidence of living organisms.

If you still can't get the argument even so then I don't think I can help you here.

It would not be difficult to state your hypothesis in section 4 without the extra dimensions. Same with section 3. We could start by simply calling it a domain. The problem I have is with bad scientific grammar. You are misusing the notion of spacial dimensions. Its something precise, not just a place for a particular type of action.

Again you need to ask yourself what properties this domain has, and whether it has anything in common with extra spacial dimensions. I'm not going to demand you do it here, but if you are going to clean up your theory this extra dimension stuff is a good place to start.

 

[merlin wood]

The problem I have is with bad scientific grammar. You are misusing the notion of spacial dimensions.

In terms of the causal hypothesis I have constructed I insist that I'm not misusing the notion of spatial dimension.

I find the method of representing th the cause acting from these dimensions works rather than any other method and so it's not a matter of "scientific grammar" whatever that may mean, anyway.

And you'l find the word is spelt 'spatial' not 'spacial'.

 

[Knotted]

In terms of the causal hypothesis I have constructed I insist that I'm not misusing the notion of spatial dimension.

I find the method of representing th the cause acting from these dimensions works rather than any other method and so it's not a matter of "scientific grammar" whatever that may mean, anyway.

And you'l find the word is spelt 'spatial' not 'spacial'.

This goes back to the beginning of the thread. What are spatial (I think my spelling is more logical but whatever) dimensions? What properties of spatial dimensions are you using? This is a very straightforward question. Your blog does not answer this. Furthermore when you apply your theory you do not explain how these properties come into play.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that the extra dimensional stuff doesn't effect your theory. You could drop it without any trouble.

 

[Knotted]

I'll add a note on quantum potential in Bohmian mechanics, with reference to the entry in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.

Bohm originally saw quantum potential as a force that helped determine the trajectory of the particle alongside classical fields. The problem is that it operates in a very chaotic manner. This is where the theory becomes awkward and contrived.

However if we consider these quantum particles as just behaving in a very different manner to ordinary classical particles the whole thing becomes much more straightforward with a nice easy Schrodinger equation and Bohm's related guiding equation.

Merlin Wood seems to be taking the former view with classical-like particles operating in an irratic field. He tackles the problematic character of the quantum potential by putting it into some sort of realm seperate from ordinary space. Now this realm has nothing to do with extra spacial dimensions in his description other than that it is declared to be. But putting that aside it remains a possibility that a different persepective on quantum potential could make it operate in an elegant manner.

I remain open minded, but I think that its much more attractive to say that quantum 'particles' are not classical particles and operate according their own laws. I have no problem with quantum superpositions, which arise naturally from the identification of the particles momentum with an imaginery (as in imaginery number) differential operator which is key to the Schrodinger equation. Note that Bohmian mechanics uses the Schrodinger equation for the pilot wave so it should not be expected to give a classical-like description.

With respect to the measurement problem, Bohm's interpretation does solve it. That is it integrates the description of the measurement with the description of the evolution of a quantum system. However it does not explain the distinction between classical and quantum behaviour.

 

[merlin wood]

This goes back to the beginning of the thread. What are spatial (I think my spelling is more logical but whatever) dimensions? What properties of spatial dimensions are you using? This is a very straightforward question. Your blog does not answer this. Furthermore when you apply your theory you do not explain how these properties come into play.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that the extra dimensional stuff doesn't effect your theory. You could drop it without any trouble.

The extra dimensional aspect of the hypothesis is absolutely crucial and essential for the whole argument and cannot be omitted in any event.

So, for one thing, only by acting from these dimensions can the cause act universally so as conserve the particular form of a given type of atom, molecule or living organisms and also avoid being affected by the forces that all act just within three dimensional space.

And for another thing, only an extradimensional cause can act so as to universalise the quantum wave as a particular form of behaviour that that can thus continues to occur over any distance.

Then also, the fact that quantum entanglement can't be measured to vary as an effect at any distance between obects can only be explained in terms of a cause that, by not varying or reducing in its action in any way with distance, can't be described as surrounding objects in 3D space.

Then again, the experimentally measured faster than light property of the entanglement effetc becomes compatable with relativity since this theory only applies to the 4D space-time of the universe observed. So that with a causation acting from outside this space-time you can consider that instantantaneity of effect is possible.

And given such extra-dimensional instantaneity under all conditions of distance and relative motion, there would be no backwards in time signalling contradiction since the return signal could only be received at the same instant that it was sent and never before.

The extra-dimensional nature of the further cause is also essential for the resolving of the mind/body and consciousness problems I consider.

In my blog I just say that the extra dimensions are additional relationships in space to the three of height, breadth and depth occupied by matter, radiant energy and all the forces. Thus they can considered as being just like the dimensions in the observable universe. And so the further dimensions are not treated as if they are things in themselves that can be curled up on the small scale as in string theory

In my hypothesis such dimensions exist on a scale that is as large as the spatial dimensions of the observable universe. But given that they only contain a cause that, like gravity and the charge force, is invisible then the existence of these extra dimensions could not be observed.

 

[Knotted]

Then again, the experimentally measured faster than light property of the entanglement effetc becomes compatable with relativity since this theory only applies to the 4D space-time of the universe observed. So that with a causation acting from outside this space-time you can consider that instantantaneity of effect is possible.

I'm going to pick up on this bit and add an emphasis because it demonstrates that you are not talking about extra spacial dimension.

What is this space-time? If space-time has extra dimensions it is still this space-time. The extra dimensions are not seperate from this space-time, this space-time is part of the extra dimensional space-time.

What you are really talking about is a seperate realm of some description which this space-time is not part of. As you say yourself there is a something outside this which must be a that of some sort.

If this space-time were part of that realm then the forces would still act non-locally and if this is really a problem then it is still a problem if you add extra dimensions. Non-local remains non-local no matter how many dimensions you add (including even infinite dimensions).

The problem you identify is not to do with the number of dimensions but to do with spatial metrics. In your new realm the metric operates differently, hence it is not an extention of space. It is different, seperate and unrelated.

You are not talking about extra spatial dimensions. You are talking about an underfined but seperate realm.

Furthermore you will not be able to make your theory compatable with even Gallilean relativity nevermind special relaitivity if you add special dimensions which behave radically differently from other spatial dimensions.

All you seem to be doing is insisting that apples are oranges and then making a big play about how apples taste like oranges.

 

[Knotted]

Then again, the experimentally measured faster than light property of the entanglement effetc becomes compatable with relativity since this theory only applies to the 4D space-time of the universe observed. So that with a causation acting from outside this space-time you can consider that instantantaneity of effect is possible.

I rattled off that last post too quickly. The above is the first actual justification of any sort that you have given for your extra dimensions.

However it suffers from an obvious problem in that just because something is (supposedly) impossible in 4D space-time does not make it possible in 5D or 6D space-time. Non-local is still non-local.

Furthermore the problem with reconciling Bohmian mechanics with special relativity is not that it is non-local but that it describes simultaneous actions at a distance. In relativity notions of simultaneity regardless of inertial frameworks are not even coherent. You cannot get round this using any sort of mechanism to explain the action because the problem is not to do with the mechanism it is to do with the action.

 

[merlin wood]

I rattled off that last post too quickly. The above is the first actual justification of any sort that you have given for your extra dimensions.

However it suffers from an obvious problem in that just because something is (supposedly) impossible in 4D space-time does not make it possible in 5D or 6D space-time. Non-local is still non-local.

Furthermore the problem with reconciling Bohmian mechanics with special relativity is not that it is non-local but that it describes simultaneous actions at a distance. In relativity notions of simultaneity regardless of inertial frameworks are not even coherent. You cannot get round this using any sort of mechanism to explain the action because the problem is not to do with the mechanism it is to do with the action.

Sorry, don't get this. Please read my last message again and refer to the blog hypothesis. Relativity, as I say, applies only to 4D space-time that contains matter, radiant energy and the forces. And you can also say that relativity only applies in the observable universe in 4D space time because it contains objects in motion, Therefore a cause that acts upon matter and radiant energy by relating in space from further spatial dimensions outside 4D space-time (and that contain no matter or radiant energy and thus no objects either in motion or otherwise) could produce instantaneous effects.

 

[Knotted]

Sorry, don't get this. Please read my last message again and refer to the blog hypothesis. Relativity, as I say, applies only to 4D space-time that contains matter, radiant energy and the forces. And you can also say that relativity only applies in the observable universe in 4D space time because it contains objects in motion, Therefore a cause that acts upon matter and radiant energy by relating in space from further spatial dimensions outside 4D space-time (and that contain no matter or radiant energy and thus no objects either in motion or otherwise) could produce instantaneous effects.

Well hang on a second. Relativity applies to space-time. If you have extended space-time by adding extra dimensions then relativity will apply to this. However if your hidden realm is not spatial/temporal then relativity will not apply to it. You have to make your mind up on this.

But leaving that objection aside, there is a further, more fundamental objection. If the action is simultaneous, then it is simultaneous regardless of the mechanism. Even if you have a mechanism that explains this simultaneity, this does not make the simultaneity disappear. It is still simultaneous. This is incoherent in special relativity. So Lorentz invariance is violated within ordinary 4D space-time, regardless of what happens in hidden realms or extra dimensions.

To reiterate the problem here is not the action at a distance. It is the Bohmian description. Elaborating on the Bohmian description does not solve this problem - it needs to be modified in some way to make it compatable with special relativity.

 

[merlin wood]

Well hang on a second. Relativity applies to space-time. If you have extended space-time by adding extra dimensions then relativity will apply to this.

Relativity presently applies just to the 4D space time of the obwsevable universe that contains matter and the forces. Explain in detail please why relativity should apply to additional dimensions of space that do no not contain any matter and where no forces act.

But leaving that objection aside, there is a further, more fundamental objection. If the action is simultaneous, then it is simultaneous regardless of the mechanism. Even if you have a mechanism that explains this simultaneity, this does not make the simultaneity disappear. It is still simultaneous. This is incoherent in special relativity. So Lorentz invariance is violated within ordinary 4D space-time, regardless of what happens in hidden realms or extra dimensions.

To reiterate the problem here is not the action at a distance. It is the Bohmian description. Elaborating on the Bohmian description does not solve this problem - it needs to be modified in some way to make it compatable with special relativity.

I'm saying that by acting nonlocally upon matter and energy just from additional dimensions of space to 4D space-time just as an organising and form conserving cause, its effects need not obey relativistic principles. While the effects of this cause are perfectly compatable and consistent with observation and experimental results.

 

[Knotted]

Relativity presently applies just to the 4D space time of the obwsevable universe that contains matter and the forces. Explain in detail please why relativity should apply to additional dimensions of space that do no not contain any matter and where no forces act.

Firstly dimensions do not contain anything. You could say that space-time contains matter and the forces etc. So you have extended space-time with extra dimensions. This makes no difference. Space-time still contains matter and the forces etc. Its as simple as that.

If, on the other hand you have not extended space-time but added an additional hidden realm then this hidden realm would indeed not contain matter, forces etc.

Everything you say suggests that you are talking about the latter - not the former. I just wish you would say what you mean.

If I am wrong then you could answer my previous question. When do you use the spatial properties of this hidden realm?

I could easily rewrite your blog removing all references to extra dimensions and replace them with references to a hidden realm and its content would not change. Mind you it would sound more vague, but then your hypotheses are vague. I don't have a problem with that, you are raising some curious discussion points. However, as it stands it is a long way from a theory of any kind.

I'm saying that by acting nonlocally upon matter and energy just from additional dimensions of space to 4D space-time just as an organising and form conserving cause, its effects need not obey relativistic principles. While the effects of this cause are perfectly compatable and consistent with observation and experimental results.

But the effects are in 4D space-time, and in the Bohmian description this is incompatable with Lorenz invariance. Your mechanism of using a special hidden realm where relativistic principles do not apply makes no difference. The 4D space-time Bohmian description is still incompatable with 4D special relativity.

And for the third time I am going to repeat that the non-localism of quantum mechanics need not be incompatable with special relativity. However, the specifics of Bohmian non-localism is incompatable with special relativity. In order to address the specific problem of Bohmian non-localism you need to address the specifics of Bohmian mechanics. You cannot just talk about non-localism in general because that is known not to be a problem.

So to emphasise. You introduce a hidden realm in order to address a problem associated with non-localism. You have yet to identify the problem. That is unless you are addressing the problem associated with the specifics of the Bohmian description. But in this case you have not solved the problem.

 

[merlin wood]

Firstly dimensions do not contain anything. You could say that space-time contains matter and the forces etc. So you have extended space-time with extra dimensions. This makes no difference.

How does it make no difference? And I haven't extended space-time I've just extended space by adding two further dimensions of space. And I'm not saying dimensions just as such contain anying but that these dimensions of space contain something ie: a nonlocally acting cause.

Space-time still contains matter and the forces etc. Its as simple as that.

Certainly haven't and wouldn't deny this.

If, on the other hand you have not extended space-time but added an additional hidden realm then this hidden realm would indeed not contain matter, forces etc.

Everything you say suggests that you are talking about the latter - not the former. I just wish you would say what you mean.

It's you who are using the term "hidden realm" I've never used it nor would do so. 'Realm' implies some place you can go to.

If I am wrong then you could answer my previous question.

Um what question? I wonder...

When do you use the spatial properties of this hidden realm?.

Er this one? As I say these additional dimensions are not what could be reasonably called a "hidden realm". The additional dimensions are just where a cause acts upon matter and energy in addition forces and not a place where anything could exist other than this cause.

I could easily rewrite your blog removing all references to extra dimensions and replace them with references to a hidden realm and its content would not change.

But then my blog's content would then change, wouldn't it?

Mind you it would sound more vague, but then your hypotheses are vague.

I have only one hypothesis, which you may call vague as much as you like, wheras I don't think so.

However, as it stands it is a long way from a theory of any kind.

That's your opinion that no doubt you'll stick to through thick and thin.

But the effects are in 4D space-time, and in the Bohmian description this is incompatable with Lorenz invariance. Your mechanism of using a special hidden realm where relativistic principles do not apply makes no difference. The 4D space-time Bohmian description is still incompatable with 4D special relativity.

But then the Bohmian description is consistent with a wide range of experimental results. And I say a cause nonlocally acting in dimensions (which are nor a hidden realm) in addition to 4D space-time of the observable universe - ie the universe to which relativity exclusively applies - makes possible the behaviour of quantum objects that Bohm's quantum mechanics describes.

And for the third time I am going to repeat that the non-localism of quantum mechanics need not be incompatable with special relativity. However, the specifics of Bohmian non-localism is incompatable with special relativity. In order to address the specific problem of Bohmian non-localism you need to address the specifics of Bohmian mechanics. You cannot just talk about non-localism in general because that is known not to be a problem.

Um how is nonlocality in general not a problem?

So to emphasise. You introduce a hidden realm in order to address a problem associated with non-localism. You have yet to identify the problem. That is unless you are addressing the problem associated with the specifics of the Bohmian description. But in this case you have not solved the problem.

I do not introduce a hidden realm!! But only additional dimensions of space to those of 4D space-time and a cause acting upon matter and energy from these further dimensions,

And I've clearly identified the causal problem I don't know how many times before on this thread. and I really don't see why I should repeat it here once again.

And since I only call my blog a hypothesis I'm not saying that this sufficiently solves the problems that it sets out to provide solutions for.

But rather I propose that my blog account points the way towards a much more detailed and comprehensive theory of a universal cause and its effects upon matter and energy as this acts nonlocally in addition to the forces.

 

[Knotted]

Er this one? As I say these additional dimensions are not what could be reasonably called a "hidden realm". The additional dimensions are just where a cause acts upon matter and energy in addition forces and not a place where anything could exist other than this cause.

This does not answer the question.

I'll ask again. How does your hidden domain/place/realm or whatever you want to call it (you cannot call it extra spatial dimensions because you have just denied that it is part of space time) have spatial properties in any sense?

This is really straightforward. You insist that you are using spatial properties for this whatever-it-is, but cannot pinpoint any of them. Nor do you at any point describe how these spatial properties are used.

But then my blog's content would then change, wouldn't it?

If you cannot answer the above question, then no it wouldn't.

But then the Bohmian description is consistent with a wide range of experimental results. And I say a cause nonlocally acting in dimensions (which are nor a hidden realm) in addition to 4D space-time of the observable universe - ie the universe to which relativity exclusively applies - makes possible the behaviour of quantum objects that Bohm's quantum mechanics describes.

It is well known by both advocates and detractors of Bohmian mechanics that it is not compatable with special relativity. The same is true of ordinary quantum mechanics. The latter can be given relativistic corrections. Nobody has suceeded in doing the same for the former. As it stands Bohmian mechanics describes the simultaneous motion of particles. This description is very resistant to putting in a relativisitic framework.

Um how is nonlocality in general not a problem?

Why would it be?

I do not introduce a hidden realm!! But only additional dimensions of space to those of 4D space-time and a cause acting upon matter and energy from these further dimensions,

And I've clearly identified the causal problem I don't know how many times before on this thread. and I really don't see why I should repeat it here once again.

And since I only call my blog a hypothesis I'm not saying that this sufficiently solves the problems that it sets out to provide solutions for.

But rather I propose that my blog account points the way towards a much more detailed and comprehensive theory of a universal cause and its effects upon matter and energy as this acts nonlocally in addition to the forces.

This is all fair enough. However you have not addressed the problem of reconciling Bohmian mechanics with special relativity. Not that I would expect you to do this - its hard.

You might have come up with a conceptual way of dealing with non-localism, but you have implied that this conception has a spatial structure which you can neither explain nor use.

 

[merlin wood]

This does not answer the question.

I'll ask again. How does your hidden domain/place/realm or whatever you want to call it (you cannot call it extra spatial dimensions because you have just denied that it is part of space time) have spatial properties in any sense?

This is really straightforward. You insist that you are using spatial properties for this whatever-it-is, but cannot pinpoint any of them. Nor do you at any point describe how these spatial properties are used.



If you cannot answer the above question, then no it wouldn't.



It is well known by both advocates and detractors of Bohmian mechanics that it is not compatable with special relativity. The same is true of ordinary quantum mechanics. The latter can be given relativistic corrections. Nobody has suceeded in doing the same for the former. As it stands Bohmian mechanics describes the simultaneous motion of particles. This description is very resistant to putting in a relativisitic framework.



Why would it be?



This is all fair enough. However you have not addressed the problem of reconciling Bohmian mechanics with special relativity. Not that I would expect you to do this - its hard.

You might have come up with a conceptual way of dealing with non-localism, but you have implied that this conception has a spatial structure which you can neither explain nor use.

Look, mate, you are just lying through your teeth now.

So my blog does explain the spatial structure of a non-locally acting cause as you should well know if you had read it. So just troll off, will you?

 

[Knotted]

Look, mate, you are just lying through your teeth now.

So my blog does explain the spatial structure of a non-locally acting cause as you should well know if you had read it. So just troll off, will you?

You can either deal with my criticisms, take them on board or ignore them. All are fine with me, but so far you have just been giving me politician's answers - ie. just reiterating your message.

You blog emphatically does not eplain the spatial structure of the non-locally acting cause. It declares that it is a spatial structure. It never explains what this means and more imporatantly it never uses it.

 

[kyser_soze]

I do not introduce a hidden realm!! But only additional dimensions of space to those of 4D space-time and a cause acting upon matter and energy from these further dimensions,

Another dimension could easily be classifed as 'another realm'...besides, I thought one of your big bitches with String theory was it's need to invoke multiple dimensions?

Altho since there've now been what, 5 pretty smart people who have read you blog, looked at your theory and made almost identical criticisms of it and you're still coming back with the same response - You don't understand it, no that isn't what I'm saying - that it's no surprise that any actual physicists will bother looking at it.

 

[Knotted]

Altho since there've now been what, 5 pretty smart people who have read you blog, looked at your theory and made almost identical criticisms of it and you're still coming back with the same response - You don't understand it, no that isn't what I'm saying - that it's no surprise that any actual physicists will bother looking at it.

As far as I'm concerned I haven't criticised the theory. I've just criticised the use of extra dimensions and my main criticism is that it makes no difference to the theory. Its only merlin wood who thinks that I've destroyed his hypothesis. To be perfectly honest if he can't take this slight criticism I've no inclination to bother with the substance of the theory.

However I would like to make an observation about the notion of empty space. Consider the following two proposals:

1) The only occassion we ever use our notion of space is for describing distances and relative directions. [It turns out that given any system we need not use any more than the linear combination of three vectors - hence space is 3-dimensional.]

2) Space follows Gallilean relativity. There are no absolute points in space. It is meaningless to talk about the distance from this point to that point as points do not exist. We can only talk about the distance from some object to some other object.

If you agree with both of the above then it is meaningless to talk about an empty space. We could perhaps talk about an empty space between one object and another object, but there can be no coherent notion of empty space on its own.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

1) The only occassion we ever use our notion of space is for describing distances and relative directions. [It turns out that given any system we need not use any more than the linear combination of three vectors - hence space is 3-dimensional.]

I am not sure I like the wording of this one.

- Don't we use space to describe the size/volume of objects?
- Don't we use the curvature of space-time to describe gravity? If there is no meaning in distance without an object then wouldn't we all fly off the face of the planet if we jumped in the air?

 

[Knotted]

I am not sure I like the wording of this one.

- Don't we use space to describe the size/volume of objects?
- Don't we use the curvature of space-time to describe gravity? If there is no meaning in distance without an object then wouldn't we all fly off the face of the planet if we jumped in the air?

On the first point, isn't our notion of volume a construction from our notion of distance?

On the second, I think you've got me. The warping of space-time is a property of space-time that could be described in terms of 'pseudo-metrics' (see earlier in the thread for more about this term) which are generalised notion of distance (we need to generalise because we are now talking about space-time rather than a naive space so this is not really effecting the argument). However this does not explain the warping and I think you are right here.

However we need matter or energy for this warping to take place, and even more importantly we need some sort of object to describe this warping ie. we need to describe the motion of a something, so I don't think this effects my conclusion.

 

[merlin wood]

The fact is that a physics of the forces alone will never explain how the universe is the way that it is.

Whilst physicists have expended millions of words and mathematical formulae measuring, calculating and interpreting the idea of there being any further universal cause out of existence, as well as in futile attempts to develop a successful "theory of everything" by assuming just the action of the forces.

And, after all, these people also have their careers to think of. So they will obviously be the last to admit that all these efforts have been in vain and quite mistaken.

So meanwhile the human world continues to go to wrack and ruin for the lack of any facts that make enough sense of their lives.

 

[laptop]

The fact is that a physics of the forces alone will never explain how the universe is the way that it is.

Whilst physicists have expended millions of words and mathematical formulae measuring, calculating and interpreting the idea of there being any further universal cause out of existence, as well as in futile attempts to develop a successful "theory of everything" by assuming just the action of the forces.

And, after all, these people also have their careers to think of. So they will obviously be the last to admit that all these efforts have been in vain and quite mistaken.

So meanwhile the human world continues to go to wrack and ruin for the lack of any facts that make enough sense of their lives.

And here, in MW's own words, is exactly my original analysis - to which he took such abusive exception - of what his whole thing is about.

It's nothing to do with science. It's nothing to do with discovering how the world works. It's an attempt to impose a vision-thang or something. The conclusion must be true because MW says so, and the rest is marketing - "the science bit" in the hair-gloop ad.

I applaud the patience of others who have taken the long way round to this point.

 

[merlin wood]

And here, in MW's own words, is exactly my original analysis - to which he took such abusive exception - of what his whole thing is about.

It's nothing to do with science. It's nothing to do with discovering how the world works. It's an attempt to impose a vision-thang or something. The conclusion must be true because MW says so, and the rest is marketing - "the science bit" in the hair-gloop ad.

I applaud the patience of others who have taken the long way round to this point.

On the contrary, string theory has nothing to do with science because it cannot be directly supported by any observable experimental or natural evidence.

Whereas if you had really read the whole of the quantum hypothesis on my blog without prejudice you would have seen that this is supported only by the consistently confirmed direct experimental and natural evidence and cosmological theory that is also supported by such evidence.

 

[Knotted]

It's nothing to do with science. It's nothing to do with discovering how the world works. It's an attempt to impose a vision-thang or something. The conclusion must be true because MW says so, and the rest is marketing - "the science bit" in the hair-gloop ad.

Its very difficult not to agree with that. Bohmian mechanics appears to be at the heart of the theory and yet it is not treated seriously. There is no attempt to look at how quantum potential operates in practice or what happens to it when large 'classical' objects are considered. There are people who could help MW with this, but given his attitude it seems he doesn't want any help.

 

[merlin wood]

Its very difficult not to agree with that. Bohmian mechanics appears to be at the heart of the theory and yet it is not treated seriously. There is no attempt to look at how quantum potential operates in practice or what happens to it when large 'classical' objects are considered. There are people who could help MW with this, but given his attitude it seems he doesn't want any help.

Given your attitude, Knotted, I won't get any help.

But I don't need any help for Bohm's interpretation anyway. And because my hypothesis shows that a nonlocal causal hidden variables interpretation of quantium physics can be supported by large scale natural evidence given the appropriate quantum hypothesis that justifies, describes and pictures enough details of a nonlocal, extra-dimensional cause from its effects.

All I need is someone who can develop enough details of a nonlocal cosmological theory. And this needs someone trained in physics and with a sufficiently open mind to see that my hypothesis makes sense.

This, I'm afraid, seems to be just too much to hope for. Since all I seem to get anywhere is the defensive opinionated group-think that seems to be ingrained into the physics community in general.