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

[Knotted]

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.

You should have no problem then. There is nothing in your blog that does not sound like sense as long as you do not scrutinise it too carefully. Physcists are used to dealing with ideas that sound a lot less sensible. This is a point you yourself repeatedly make. Also its very easy to develop a non-local cosmological theory given the very loose specifications you desire. So most physicists will fit the above criteria.

Your problem is finding a physicist who will not subject your ideas to scrutiny. You will have to get over this problem you have with scrutiny if you are to be taken seriously. You yourself need to be able to look at your own ideas with scrutiny.

You will also have to be prepared to read up on how quantum potential works. Its absolutely central to all your various hypotheses and I can tell you straight that you have not understood the subtleties of it. In fact you don't even seem to be at the point where you know that there are subtleties. At the minute you seem to regard it as nothing more than just a bit of maths. However its in the maths that the subtleties are made explicit. If the maths is too much for you, you need to find something that discusses the pros and cons of Bohmian mechanics in detail and with a particular emphasis on how quantum potential is used in the solution to the measurement problem.

 

[laptop]

the defensive opinionated group-think that seems to be ingrained into the physics community in general.

So they're conspiring against your Truth.

If you were interested in truth with a small "t", on the other hand, you'd have to face the possibility that you're just wrong. Wrong in assumption, wrong in conclusion, and wrong in between. That's how it goes, for people looking for truth.

 

[merlin wood]

So they're conspiring against your Truth.

If you were interested in truth with a small "t", on the other hand, you'd have to face the possibility that you're just wrong. Wrong in assumption, wrong in conclusion, and wrong in between. That's how it goes, for people looking for truth.

But then this leaves out the quite reasonable possibility that the large majority of present physicists are just wrong in their interpretation.

So you can say there are, on the one hand, the observable effects upon matter and ernergy that can be explained just as the effects of causes that can be called forces that push or pull or attract or repel objects.

Whereas there are atoms, molecules and living organisms that one can say are the way that they are because thet are all composed in a certain way ultimately from a few kiv=nds of subatomice components. And no details can be described of the forces to explain how this is so.

Now no physicist is going to say that this matura; organisation is only possible because a cause acts universally in addition to the forces so as to maintain or conserve this organisation. And for one good reason that such a cause cannot be described by measurement or calculation like the forces. And another reason is that there is a widely accepted interpretation, and by no means a clearly demonstated explanation of quantum mechanics that says this is the wrong kind of interpretation.

And yet you can insist that an interpretation that describes a cause acting in addition to all the forces makes sense in that electrons possess wave and entanglement properties of behaviour that cannot be explained as effects caused by any force or any cause like the forces.

So that you can insist that quantum wave and entanglement behaviour occurs as the result of a cause that has no measurable strength as it acts at a distance between the subatomic components and so acts nonlocally without surrounding these objects. And no physicist could ever show that or how such a causal interpretation is wrong.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

Merlin Wood:

What scientific tests would prove your theory as correct or otherwise?

 

[merlin wood]

Merlin Wood:

What scientific tests would prove your theory as correct or otherwise?

There are no definite scientific tests I can think of that may be considered to prove a nonlocal causal theory correct as this relates to living organisms. Although the strongest evidence I've seen of a nonlocal connection between humans is one that I saw on live TV once where identical twins were put in separate rooms and were wired up to cardiographs. And this showed a definite correlation of an increase in heart rate that was externally induced only in one of the twins.

Not having been able to develop the cosmological hypothesis mathematically I haven't been able to calculate precise predictions that can be tested by observation and measurement. But I feal sure that this would be possible given such a theoretical development.

So, for example, in my hypothesis I suggest that the nonlocal cause could contribute to the energy output of stars. While a sufficiently developed nonlocal cosmological theory may be able to calculate how much this energy contribution should be in the sun. In which case a sufficiently sensitive experiment designed to detect neutrinos may be able to detect this contribution by measuring a certain shortfall in solar neutrino emmisions that are produced by nuclear fusion reactions.

Also, I've been reading Lee Smolin's excellent book The Trouble with Physics where there is mention of a close measured relationship that has been found between the rate of acceleration of the expansion of universe as a whole and the orbits of stars in spiral galaxies.

Smolin says that this relationship could be explained by the properties of dark matter or a modifcation of Newton's laws of gravity (called MOND) based on the the galactic orbital motion of stars that could, somehow, be extended to the the whole cosmos.

However, despite some twenty years of experiment, suitable dark matter has yet to be directly detected and even though this kind of stuff is estimated to comprise around 90% of all matter in the universe and needs to consist of a lot more massive particles than neutrinos that have been directly detected. And Smolin discusses the problems with MOND. One of these being that MOND does not work very well outside galaxies.

Whereas my hypothesis proposes that galaxies actually formed in the first place as the result of a extra-dimensional causal reflection of the expanding universe. In which case a relationship between the increasing rate of universal expansion and the rotation rate of stars in galaxies is only to be expected.

 

[Knotted]

However, despite some twenty years of experiment, suitable dark matter has yet to be directly detected and even though this kind of stuff is estimated to comprise around 90% of all matter in the universe and needs to consist of a lot more massive particles than neutrinos that have been directly detected. And Smolin discusses the problems with MOND. One of these being that MOND does not work very well outside galaxies.

Whereas my hypothesis proposes that galaxies actually formed in the first place as the result of a extra-dimensional causal reflection of the expanding universe. In which case a relationship between the increasing rate of universal expansion and the rotation rate of stars in galaxies is only to be expected.

You do understand that your hypothesis here is a mechanism for MOND and that all the problems with MOND are problems with your hypothesis.

If physicists are having problems with working out in terms of pure mathematics in what way gravity is to be modified then it does not help the problem by proposing a descriptionless mechanism. The description is still needed and even this is problematic - and that's without making any assumptions about the underlying mechanism following the dynamics of some sort of quantum field.

 

[merlin wood]

You do understand that your hypothesis here is a mechanism for MOND and that all the problems with MOND are problems with your hypothesis.

If physicists are having problems with working out in terms of pure mathematics in what way gravity is to be modified then it does not help the problem by proposing a descriptionless mechanism. The description is still needed and even this is problematic - and that's without making any assumptions about the underlying mechanism following the dynamics of some sort of quantum field.

It would be really good idea if you just got knotted, Knotted. You just keep misrepresenting my arguments in a way that one can only conclude is deliberate.

I've just been saying in my last post that I'm proposing an alternative to MOND.

So in a nonlocal causal hypothesis it's not that Newton's laws themselves need to be modified, as with MOND, but that to explain the rotation of spiral galaxies a cause needs to be described as acting in addition to all the forces including gravity.

So I argue that the formation of galaxies, rather than being seeded in the very early universe as in cosmic inflation theory, resulted from an extra-dimensional universalised reflection of the expansion of the comos itself.

This nonlocal cause thus produces an additional effect upon galaxies to that of gravity and so would explain why there is this direct and close measured relationship between the acceleration in the expansion of the whole cosmos and the acceleration in the motion of stars in spiral galaxies.

And the overall action of such a universal nonlocal cause upon galaxies is also consistent with its action on the small scale as it produces the quantum wave, spin and entanglement: the form of spiral galaxies thus being conserved just as the form and organisation of atoms and molecules are conserved despite action of the forces.

Also if people entirely ignore Knotted's posts and go to http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com they will not find that the action of a nonlocal cause is descriptionless but that can this can be represented diagrammatically.

 

[Knotted]

It would be really good idea if you just got knotted, Knotted. You just keep misrepresenting my arguments in a way that one can only conclude is deliberate.

I've just been saying in my last post that I'm proposing an alternative to MOND.

So in a nonlocal causal hypothesis it's not that Newton's laws themselves need to be modified, as with MOND, but that to explain the rotation of spiral galaxies a cause needs to be described as acting in addition to all the forces including gravity.

I have good reason to think that this is only a semantic distinction. I would go into it if I thought you were taking your theory seriously.

However, at root what are the problems associated with MOND that you describe? Basically that the operation of the laws of physics need to be consistent. They need to be consistent at a galactic level and at an intergalactic level. If you get round to describing this action of yours then you will have the same problem in different terms. How does the operation work at different scales? At one point it seems to strengthen gravity where it mimics dark matter. At another point it seems to counteract gravity where it mimics dark energy. I would suggest that reason your theory provides simple solutions is that it makes no attempt to be consistent. Without consistency all science is trivial. Science just becomes a collection of results perhaps with a mechanisitic narative, but if the mechanism can be turned off and on on a wim then it doesn't mean very much.

 

[merlin wood]

I have good reason to think that this is only a semantic distinction. I would go into it if I thought you were taking your theory seriously.

Why should I bother keep replying to bullshitting arseholes like you, Knotted, if I didn't take my hypothesis very seriously indeed?

However, at root what are the problems associated with MOND that you describe? Basically that the operation of the laws of physics need to be consistent. They need to be consistent at a galactic level and at an intergalactic level. If you get round to describing this action of yours then you will have the same problem in different terms. How does the operation work at different scales? At one point it seems to strengthen gravity where it mimics dark matter. At another point it seems to counteract gravity where it mimics dark energy. I would suggest that reason your theory provides simple solutions is that it makes no attempt to be consistent. Without consistency all science is trivial. Science just becomes a collection of results perhaps with a mechanisitic narative, but if the mechanism can be turned off and on on a wim then it doesn't mean very much.

The fact is that, as it presently stands, my cosmological hypthesis is wholly consistent with the astronomical evidence. Whereas a cosmology that only assumes the action at a distance of gravity on astronomical scales becomes less tenable by the year.

 

[Knotted]

The fact is that, as it presently stands, my cosmological hypthesis is wholly consistent with the astronomical evidence. Whereas a cosmology that only assumes the action at a distance of gravity on astronomical scales becomes less tenable by the year.

You miss my point. Coming up with a theory that's consistent with the evidence is easy. It doesn't matter whether the theory uses extra dimensions or non-local action - this makes no difference. Looking purely at the experimental data and fitting a theory to it is child's play. Fitting a theory that's internally consistent, that not only works but also works in other circumstances, that you can make predictions from that's the hard part.

Physics is not hard just because of the perversity of physcisists.

 

[merlin wood]

You miss my point. Coming up with a theory that's consistent with the evidence is easy. It doesn't matter whether the theory uses extra dimensions or non-local action - this makes no difference. Looking purely at the experimental data and fitting a theory to it is child's play. Fitting a theory that's internally consistent, that not only works but also works in other circumstances, that you can make predictions from that's the hard part.

Physics is not hard just because of the perversity of physcisists.

More crass bullshit, I'm afraid.

So if anyone reads, especially, sections 2.2 to 3.4 of the http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/ hypothesis they will find that the cosmolological hypothesis is, indeed, internally consistent.

And the above mentioned relationship between the acceleration of the universal expansion and spiral galaxy rotation constitute measured empirical support for the hypothesis. Whereas neither dark matter theory nor MOND need be considered to provide an adequate explanation for this relationship.

 

[Knotted]

More crass bullshit, I'm afraid.

So if anyone reads, especially, sections 2.2 to 3.4 of the http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com/ hypothesis they will find that the cosmolological hypothesis is, indeed, internally consistent.

And the above mentioned relationship between the acceleration of the universal expansion and spiral galaxy rotation constitute measured empirical support for the hypothesis. Whereas neither dark matter theory nor MOND need be considered to provide an adequate explanation for this relationship.

I never said that there were any inconsistencies in your blog. To be brutally honest its too vague to be either internally consistent or internally inconsistent. However if you were concerned with consistency, then you would consider situations where the laws of physics seem to work fine without any extra actions or forces or whatever. For example what happens if you perform the double slit experiment with cricket balls? How does the non-local action work when we consider the motion of planets in the solar system?

 

[merlin wood]

I never said that there were any inconsistencies in your blog. To be brutally honest its too vague to be either internally consistent or internally inconsistent. However if you were concerned with consistency, then you would consider situations where the laws of physics seem to work fine without any extra actions or forces or whatever. For example what happens if you perform the double slit experiment with cricket balls? How does the non-local action work when we consider the motion of planets in the solar system?

Yet more bullshit, which is just not worth replying to this time, if it was ever, really.

Why not live up to your name, Knotted? Embrace string theory and do some crochet work with the proceeds instead?

 

[User 301X/5.1]

So I argue that the formation of galaxies, rather than being seeded in the very early universe as in cosmic inflation theory, resulted from an extra-dimensional universalised reflection of the expansion of the comos itself.

I read this article in this weeks new scientist also.

Is this really a fundamental part of your theory or are you just stealing and chucking in these nice words (almost word for word in fact!!!) from an interesting article in new scientist?

I think your ego and your desire to be considered a cutting edge physisist/philosopher exceed your capacity for a robust debate about your theory.

 

[merlin wood]

I read this article in this weeks new scientist also.

Is this really a fundamental part of your theory or are you just stealing and chucking in these nice words (almost word for word in fact!!!) from an interesting article in new scientist?

I think your ego and your desire to be considered a cutting edge physisist/philosopher exceed your capacity for a robust debate about your theory.

Please tell us the exact article that you'r talking abiout, please, User 301X/5.1 because I bought new Scientist this week and I can tell you there just ain't no such article you lying twat.

So piss off will you?

 

[merlin wood]

The truth is that from no physics of a forces alone will there be developed a theory everything the will generally explain how the universe is the way that it is. And this is basically because both matter as atoms, molecules and living organisms exists despite the action of the forces and the evolution and presently observed fom of the universe on rhe large scale just can't be explained as resulting just from the action of the forces alone.

And hence modertn physics is stuck with the untestable theories of quantum gravity, including superstings, as well as cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy,

And hence, also, physicists have a lot at stake in not wanting anyone to believe that a theory could be developed that explodes all these theories.

No doubt the truth will prevail eventually. But tragically, I'm afraid, it looks like it's going to be a long slog getting there.

 

[Knotted]

The truth is that from no physics of a forces alone will there be developed a theory everything the will generally explain how the universe is the way that it is.

Of course not. Does anyone serously think that relativity, quantum mechanics or thermodynamics for example can be derived from theories about fundamental forces?

With respect to the first two examples, we need these theories before we can understand the nature of the four forces properly. With respect to the last example, the second law of thermodynamics is surely an emergent law dependent on the arrangement of the universe and quite independent of the fundamental forces (I could be wrong on that though).

Of course there may turn out to be an extra fifth force that has yet to be accounted for and could perhaps unite the other four forces in some way, but as I understand it there has been considerable research into this possibility. Its certainly not something phycisists fervently deny out of shear block headedness.

 

[merlin wood]

Of course not. Does anyone serously think that relativity, quantum mechanics or thermodynamics for example can be derived from theories about fundamental forces?

With respect to the first two examples, we need these theories before we can understand the nature of the four forces properly. With respect to the last example, the second law of thermodynamics is surely an emergent law dependent on the arrangement of the universe and quite independent of the fundamental forces (I could be wrong on that though).

Of course there may turn out to be an extra fifth force that has yet to be accounted for and could perhaps unite the other four forces in some way, but as I understand it there has been considerable research into this possibility. Its certainly not something phycisists fervently deny out of shear block headedness.

Can't you ever represent what I've actually been saying, Knotted??

So so nowhere have I said anything about the law of thermodynamlcs nor about physicists being "blockheaded" nor of there being a "fifth force".

I've been saying that physicists have a lot of self interest involved in wanting people to believe that their measurements and complex calculations will eventually lead to an all explaining theory of everything. They can also point to a long tradition in physics dating back to Copernicus, Kepler and Newton where mathematics has been indispensable for the the development of physical theories.

Whereas I'm insisting that the development of a workable and testable theory of everything requires a way of thinking that can still be regarded as scientific but where measurement and calculation at most plays only a secondary role in helping to support a theory that, primarily and in the first instance, needs to be non-mathematical. And this is basically because the theory is not about a cause that acts like any force.

So to consider that and how it acts in world at all it needs to be thought that this cause has essential universal properties that cannot be deduced or described by measurement and calculation.

For this cause:

(1) cannot be described as producing effects upon matter and energy bypushing or pulling or attracting or repelling objects.

(2) has no measurable strength as it acts at a distance between quantum objects so as to produce their entanglement.

(3) Doesn't act locally to objects as it surrounds them in 3D space like the four forces called the fundamental interactions, namely, gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear weak and strong forces becuse it has no strength that reduces or ceases with increasing distance around objects.

(4) can be described as maintaining or conserving the form of quantum wave behaviour and the correlations between entangled objects.

And none of these causal properties can be derived from from any theory of quantum gravity or combined theory of the forces basically because these properties are so distinctive of a cause that acts in addition to the forces.

 

[Knotted]

And none of these causal properties can be derived from from any theory of quantum gravity or combined theory of the forces basically because these properties are so distinctive of a cause that acts in addition to the forces.

Nor can Newton's first law of motion.

Nor can Einstein's theory of special relativity when applied to non-accelerating objects.

Infact any physics that describes objects which are not undergoing a change of momentum are not derivable from any theory of forces combined or otherwise, involving quantum theory or otherwise.

And then there's the Pauli exlusion principle and the laws of thermodynamics.

That's all just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more physical theories that do not rely on the nature of the fundamental forces.

So I conclude, contrary to your last two posts, that physicists have no problem with theories that are independent of theories about the four fundamental forces of nature. Furthermore contrary to your last post I never suggested that you yourself have been talking about the laws of thermodynamics or a fifth fundamental force.

 

[merlin wood]

Furthermore contrary to your last post I never suggested that you yourself have been talking about the laws of thermodynamics or a fifth fundamental force.

You were heavily imolying that this was so.

I give up Knotted, you're just prolonging the tragedy. Goodbye.

 

[Knotted]

You were heavily imolying that this was so.

Not in the slightest. I do, however, feel free to interpret what you say as exactly what you mean and I feel free to to discuss any implications of this.

[ETA: If I were trying to imply that you were talking about these things I would have left out the "for example" in "Does anyone serously think that relativity, quantum mechanics or thermodynamics for example can be derived from theories about fundamental forces?" - "example" meaning that I am introducing an example strangely enough.]

You can ignore me when I do this if you please. There's a very useful ignore function if you fancy using it.

 

[merlin wood]

I said goodbye

 

[User 301X/5.1]

Please tell us the exact article that you'r talking abiout, please, User 301X/5.1 because I bought new Scientist this week and I can tell you there just ain't no such article you lying twat.

So piss off will you?

It was in the 25th August publication. An article entitled something along the lines of "bad news for string theory"

 

[merlin wood]

It was in the 25th August publication. An article entitled something along the lines of "bad news for string theory"

Well here's the contents page for the 25th August 2007 New Scientist. So where's this article then?

 

[User 301X/5.1]

Well here's the contents page for the 25th August 2007 New Scientist. So where's this article then?

Sorry Merlin Wood - I checked and I think I quoted the wrong edition, I had two magazines in my bag:


8th September 2007 - Which is actually after the date of your post.

http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2620.html

Text extracted from this article follows:

""I AM a heretic," Cristiano Germani announced to an audience of
cosmologists last month. Few would disagree, as he is proposing a
radical alternative to standard cosmology: a universe with no big bang
creation moment, and no rapid inflation..................

......The extra dimensions are wrapped up into a complex shape known
as a Calabi-Yau space (see Illustration). The forces and particles in
our 3D world are shadows of the motion of branes and strings in the
Calabi-Yau space."


Compare this with an extract from your post above:

"So I argue that the formation of galaxies, rather than being seeded in the very early universe as in cosmic inflation theory, resulted from an extra-dimensional universalised reflection of the expansion of the comos itself".


Do you see how I came to my conlcusion that you have tried to bolt Cristiano Germani's theory into yours?

I read your blog and your posts in this thread and don't remember any reference to inflation theory alternatives before your post on the 6th September. I know this is before the date on the front of New Scientist and therefore you can argue that you didn't read it before you added the inflation theory arguement to your theory. There remain some possibilities:

- you read Cristiano Germani's theory elsewhere before your post which is similar to his theory.
- your theory is similar theory to/complements Cristiano Germani's.
- your are Cristiano Germani

It just seemed strange to me that you threw this one into the mix around the same time as this guys theory was being published.

If you have never read the article in full you will find it here: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.romanian/msg/e1a23414ed40bf62

 

[merlin wood]

Do you see how I came to my conlcusion that you have tried to bolt Cristiano Germani's theory into yours?

No I don't see at all. So either you have not actually read my blog, you're bullshitting or you're just being crass.

So not only does Cristiano Germani not mention anything about galaxies being formed by the extrdimensional causal reflection of the Big Bang (and so his theory could not explain the relationship between the acceleration rate of cosmic expansion with the acceleration rate in the rotation of spiral galaxies). But also, Germani's is a string theory which conceives of any extra dimensions of space as being curled up or compacted on the tiny Planck scale.

Whereas, obviously, to cause whole galaxies to evolve anywhere in the cosmos an extradimensional, nonlocal cause would need to act on a scale that is as large as the universe itself.

Then also, and most fundamentally unlike my hypothesis, string theory was not deduced, in the first instance, by considering what could be a distinct cause of quantum wave and entanglement behaviour that would act in addition to the forces.

So string theory still assumes the action upon matter and energy of the forces alone.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

Germani's is a string theory which conceives of any extra dimensions of space as being curled up or compacted on the tiny Planck scale.

Isn't Germani's theory more than just string theory if he is considering all of the the three main spacial dimensions rolled onto a brane. Isn't this M-theory? whereby the extra dimensions of space are connected because each string is actually connected on a extra dimensional brane?

 

[merlin wood]

Isn't Germani's theory more than just string theory if he is considering all of the the three main spacial dimensions rolled onto a brane. Isn't this M-theory? whereby the extra dimensions of space are connected because each string is actually connected on a extra dimensional brane?

Well I can't say that I'm up with the the latest obscure developments in string or M theory.

But I will say that there are and never were any strings or branes or small scale dimensions in my hypothesis of a nonlocal cause and its effects, the development of which, in fact, dates back more than 20 years.

And I insist that there cannot be successful theory of everything until the the distinct large and small scale, extradimensional action and effects of a nonlocal cause are recognised and justified and represented in enough detail.

 

[User 301X/5.1]

And I insist that there cannot be successful theory of everything until the the distinct large and small scale, extradimensional action and effects of a nonlocal cause are recognised and justified and represented in enough detail.

If you INSIST on this you must be able to explain it more clearly. What does this statement really mean??

 

[merlin wood]

If you INSIST on this you must be able to explain it more clearly. What does this statement really mean??

My blog hypothesis is the only way to explain in enough detail what this statement really means. And this blog account is expressed in quite clear and ordinary English and requires no knowlege of mathematics at all.

And basically what my account is saying is quite simple. Which is for there to be any structure, organisation or form of matter at all as atoms, molecules and living organisms a distinct cause needs to act universally and constantly in addition to all the forces.

The action of this additional cause is form, structure and organisation maintaining or conserving. So that atomic, molecular and organic systems of subatomic components can resist the action of all the forces acting within and upon them.

The quantum mechanics that describes the wave, spin and entanglement behaviour of photons and subatomic components indicates that the action this form (etc.) conserving cause is nonlocal by acting with invariable effect at any distance and so cannot be described as surrounding objects in 3D space.

By producing appropriate diagrams that indirectly represent the further cause as acting from two additional dimensions of space and then relatiing these diagrams to certain problems of mind and consciousness, it can be explained how the cause can act extra-dimensionally so as to conserve the forms of all the elements and compounds and the species of living organisms.

Also, by describing in enough detail the nature of a nonlocal and extra-dimensional cause of quantum wave behaviour, reasons can be found to consider that this cause could act in addition to the forces on the astronomical scale and explain the large scale structure as the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, galactic clusters and cosmic voids and without the need for an inflation theory or WIMP dark matter.