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

[merlin wood]

Now, what would consitute evidence for that statement? Documentation of six lies, say?

Produce, withdraw or disappear.

Not understanding the concept "evidence" is no defence.

Like:

But there's the crux. In your blog you have merely asserted

"That there "must be" a cause - presumably because it fits with the æsthetics of some acid-induced or organic hallucination; and
That that cause is "vortexes" which act in at least "one extra large scale dimension of space"

If I propose there is a Cause, and it resides in three extra time dimensions (two of them imaginary) - there is no way we can tell the difference from your assertion. So both are redundant. They tell us nothing.

From "Alain Aspect + The Holographic Universe" page 7 and none of which is true.

Whereas in fact, unlike superstring theory, for example, the hypothesis on my blog consists of a quantum hypothesis that is supported by a wide range of observable natural evidence.

 

[Blagsta]

I love the way acid casualties come up with their pet theories...without the maths!

 

[laptop]

You really don't know what "a lie" is, or the difference between a lie and someone contradicting you, do you?

Withdraw.

Whereas in fact, unlike superstring theory, for example, the hypothesis on my blog consists of a quantum hypothesis that is supported by a wide range of observable natural evidence.

It's not a quantum hypothesis if it's not expressed mathematically.

No testable predictions follow from the "vortex" thingy.

It's just a picture in your head.

Your use of the word "support" shows that you have no concept of even how to decide whether that picture could in principle be tested against observation.

 

[Masseuse]

I love the way acid casualties come up with their pet theories...without the maths!

Yeah well today acid gave me experiential knowledge of a universe where maths doesn't exist. Everything was like jelly.

At the same time I finally understood Zermelo-Fraenkel's axioms of set theory while fleeing from a flock of seagulls. Fat lot of good that would be to me in jellyland tho.

 

[laptop]

Everything was like jelly.

You mean that world was full of difficult maths?

 

[jcsd]

OK I think we've got there. You cannot transform a purely temporal displacement into a purely spacial displacement by changing the frame of reference. You can, however, transform orthogonal (at right angles) spacial displacements into one another by changing the frame of reference.

Yes you can use a Lornetz transformation (though the term Lorentz transformation often means the coordinate transfomations) to transform a vectors into another vector which is orthognal to it whicg are purely spatial in some frame (this is just a common or garden rotation in a Euclidean space which is a hypersurface in Minkowksi space) and yes you cannot Lorentz transform a vector that is purely temporal in some frame into a vector that is purely spatial in some frames.

Inetrestingly vectors which have zero temporal componets and orthogonal spatial compoents in some frame are orthogonal vectors in spacetime as are two vectors one of which has zero spatial compoents and one of which has zero temporal compoents in some frame.

Sure, but in this case the space is a cartesian product. And as an utterly technical point mathematicians/physicists do not usually talk about "a dimension" but rather "set", "coordinate" or "axis". "Dimension" is the size (cardinality) of a minimal spanning set of vectors for the space.

Thereare the notion of a dimension, the dimension of a vector space (the example you quote), the Hausdorff dimension, etc.

Infact the notion of the dimension of a vector space is insufficent on it's own to describe the dimension of manifolds in general. For a the Minkwoski manifold or a Euclidean mainfold you have a vector space which is made up of equivalence classes (obtained by paralell transports) of tangent vectors on the manifold dimension of this vector space is the diemnsion of the manifold. Such a vector space does not naturally exist for all Riemannian/pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, though tthe dimension of a tangent space will be the diemsnion of the manifold. for manifolds tho' their diemsnion is not dfeiend in terms of a vector space.

Hmmm. Not sure on this. Remember we are not talking about E^4(=R^4) but R^3XiR. I'm pretty sure the symmetry group will be the same as for Minkowski space.

I think this is actually the problem with regarding time as an imaginary axis in Euclidean space. The mathematics (and probably the physical intuition as well) is inelegant when you start changing frames of reference. The real and imaginary coordinates will start getting mixed up.

Thsi si my mistake yes though you have a 'Euclidean metric' you don't have a Euclidean space. Ehat is happenign though is that the properties of the space are being obscured for aesthic reasons. Plus the Minkoswki inner product is on a real vector space (R^4 to be precise) so it seems illogical to state it using imaginary numbers when it is unnecessary.

 

[Knotted]

As I see it there's nothing to be feared about non-locality except by physicis and cosmologists who've spent a lot of their time developing theories that a sufficiently developed general non-local theory of natural organization would prove wrong.

I think that's one good reason why phyicists have a tendency to try and argue non-locality out of exisnce. It is the strongest indication of how much is unexplained by orthodox quantum theory.

I'm not a physicist and I don't know what physicists are saying. Could you give me an example of someone trying to argue non-locality out of existence?

 

[Knotted]

Thereare the notion of a dimension, the dimension of a vector space (the example you quote), the Hausdorff dimension, etc.

Infact the notion of the dimension of a vector space is insufficent on it's own to describe the dimension of manifolds in general. For a the Minkwoski manifold or a Euclidean mainfold you have a vector space which is made up of equivalence classes (obtained by paralell transports) of tangent vectors on the manifold dimension of this vector space is the diemnsion of the manifold. Such a vector space does not naturally exist for all Riemannian/pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, though tthe dimension of a tangent space will be the diemsnion of the manifold. for manifolds tho' their diemsnion is not dfeiend in terms of a vector space.

I must admit that I'm a bit hazy on manifolds (most of my knowledge on this whole subject comes from measure theory not mathematical physics which has a very different emphasis). I thought that manifolds were locally vector spaces - so talking about tangent spaces makes sense.

I suppose if the manifold is not smooth then you will have a hard time defining tangent spaces so again what you say makes sense. Cool, I've got stuff to look up.

 

[Crispy]

This theory needs maths, badly.

Didn't half get some did we?

 

[merlin wood]

You really don't know what "a lie" is, or the difference between a lie and someone contradicting you, do you?

Withdraw.

Of course you won't admit it but

But there's the crux. In your blog you have merely asserted

"That there "must be" a cause - presumably because it fits with the æsthetics of some acid-induced or organic hallucination; and
That that cause is "vortexes" which act in at least "one extra large scale dimension of space"

If I propose there is a Cause, and it resides in three extra time dimensions (two of them imaginary) - there is no way we can tell the difference from your assertion. So both are redundant. They tell us nothing.


It's not a quantum hypothesis if it's not expressed mathematically.

No testable predictions follow from the "vortex" thingy.

It's just a picture in your head.

Your use of the word "support" shows that you have no concept of even how to decide whether that picture could in principle be tested against observation.

If you had read the following papers and book I refer to in my blog hypothesisyou'd have found that they all provide very detailed mathematical arguments for a non-local causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[7] Bohm, David (1952) A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II. Physical Review, 85, 1952.

[8] Bohm, D. and Bub J. (1966) A proposed solution to the measurement problem by a hidden variables theory. Review of Modern Physics, 38, 453.

[9] Holland, Peter R. (1993) The quantum theory of motion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

and see also this link on Bohmian quantum mechanics.

Also, the fact is that the extra-dimensional nature of a nonlocally acting cause cannot be argued for by any measurement, calculation or, mathematical formula. This is one key reason why a nonlocal causal interpretation is not widely accepted amongst physicists. Another reason is that a non-local cause has no measurable strength as it acts at a distance so this action cannot be expressed in any mathematical formula anyway like the action of the forces.

So the initial argument fo the existence and nature of a non-locally acting cause can only
be non-mathematical.

But as I say, the astronomical argument is such that it could be confirmed by measurement and calculation, but this needs a specialist in astrophysics or cosmology, whom I am unable to find at present.

 

[merlin wood]

If you had read the following papers and book I refer to in my blog hypothesis you'd have found that they all provide very detailed mathematical arguments for a non-local causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[7] Bohm, David (1952) A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II. Physical Review, 85, 1952.

[8] Bohm, D. and Bub J. (1966) A proposed solution to the measurement problem by a hidden variables theory. Review of Modern Physics, 38, 453.

[9] Holland, Peter R. (1993) The quantum theory of motion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

and see also this link on Bohmian quantum mechanics.

Also, the fact is that the extra-dimensional nature of a nonlocally acting cause cannot be argued for by any measurement, calculation or, mathematical formula. This is one key reason why a nonlocal causal interpretation is not widely accepted amongst physicists. Another reason is that a non-local cause has no measurable strength as it acts at a distance so this action cannot be expressed in any mathematical formula anyway like the action of the forces.

So the initial argument fo the existence and nature of a non-locally acting cause can only
be non-mathematical.

But as I say, the astronomical argument is such that it could be confirmed by measurement and calculation, but this needs a specialist in astrophysics or cosmology, whom I am unable to find at present.

...Although my blog hypothesis has shown how a non-local causal general theory of natural organisation is possible and where before no such theory need be thought conceivable.

 

[Crispy]

Longest gap between double posts, ever?

 

[EastEnder]

Longest gap between double posts, ever?

Only the longest in 4 dimensional space....

 

[Crispy]

Is this some sort of posting entanglement?

 

[merlin wood]

it just shows the entangled lives that people lead.

 

[snouty warthog]

edit

 

[panpete]

The Imagination is the ultimate dimension, as within this, dimensions are infinite.

As for the original question, things that are not mundane or physical, but no less real, seem "beyond the scope of language".
Reality is physical, so the common consensus goes, but is there more to it? Reality is a bollocks word, because, although it is known as physical,verbal etc, when considering things such as dimensions, and other physics denying stuff, this is where what we have been led to believe as reality, kinda stops being real

edited for punctuation

 

[muser]

I thought by calling Lorentzian metric tensors 'bad boys' I was bringing my description down to street level

More simply put then:

A metric is a function that allows you to calculate a generalized notion of distance between the members of a set. This function obeys ceratin rules and if you relax one fo those rules then you have what is called a pseudometric (specifically if you relax the rule that the distance between two different members of a set is greater than zero). The equivalent distance function over spacetime doesn't even obey enough of the rules of a metric to be called a pseudometric.

I know little about physics, but are you describing symmetry breaking?

 

[muser]

If you had read the following papers and book I refer to in my blog hypothesisyou'd have found that they all provide very detailed mathematical arguments for a non-local causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[7] Bohm, David (1952) A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II. Physical Review, 85, 1952.

[8] Bohm, D. and Bub J. (1966) A proposed solution to the measurement problem by a hidden variables theory. Review of Modern Physics, 38, 453.

[9] Holland, Peter R. (1993) The quantum theory of motion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

and see also this link on Bohmian quantum mechanics.

Also, the fact is that the extra-dimensional nature of a nonlocally acting cause cannot be argued for by any measurement, calculation or, mathematical formula. This is one key reason why a nonlocal causal interpretation is not widely accepted amongst physicists. Another reason is that a non-local cause has no measurable strength as it acts at a distance so this action cannot be expressed in any mathematical formula anyway like the action of the forces.

So the initial argument fo the existence and nature of a non-locally acting cause can only
be non-mathematical.

But as I say, the astronomical argument is such that it could be confirmed by measurement and calculation, but this needs a specialist in astrophysics or cosmology, whom I am unable to find at present.

This is what I dislike about physic, is that when someone comes along with a perfectly reasonable assertion he\she is met with derision or silence. MW is right in the above statement, if he isn't then refute it.

 

[laptop]

MW is right in the above statement

Which statement?

Take this pair of statements:

a non-local cause has no measurable strength as it acts at a distance so this action cannot be expressed in any mathematical formula anyway like the action of the forces.

So the initial argument fo the existence and nature of a non-locally acting cause can only be non-mathematical.

The first is nonsense. It makes no sense. Why would it have "no measurable strength"? In what sense would it exist if it had none?

The second is a weak defence of MW's failure to do any maths, or to interest anyone who can do any maths enough to do it.

MW has started from a conclusion - "I don't need to do maths" and made up an ad hoc argument to support it.

In the same way, if you could bear to read the entire correspondence, MW has started from a "revelation" of some kind - that there "must be" a Final Cause, if I recall correctly - and proceeded to make up ad-hoc arguments working backwards from that conviction.

This is why it/he/she is met with derision.

 

[snouty warthog]

(I posted this earlier, and then deleted it, due to it being a very personal experience. I sent it as a PM directly to Eastender... subsequently, there has been interest in the post, and so I decided to submit it again. please bear in mind that this is a valuable and personal experience for me, and I am sensitive about discussing it on a public BB)

I can only really reply from my own experience. I had a 'peak experience' a few times in my life, where I entered a space which had more dimensions than the usual 3, or four if you include time. (I wasn't on drugs any of these times...)

in fact 'time' didn't seem to exist in this dimension- it was possible to 'see' time to the point of infinity, and indeed space, to the point of infinity. I speak now from a firmly 3D persepective, so I am no longer able to fully comprehend my experience, only to kind of 'translate it' into my current perspective. one very strange element was 'multiple perspectives'- I was simultaneously able to see an object from several viewpoints... and I felt myself to be simultaneously the size of an atom, and the size of the universe, infinite... to say it freaked me would be an understatement, and that was when the experience ended.

to your second question, is there any point in trying to concieve these dimensions? I would say emphatically 'yes'. for me, it gave me a sense of the order of the universe, and in fact, a kind of 'universal knowledge' that gave meaning to my life on earth.

I hope that doesn't all sound like 'hippy bollocks'- it was a genuine experience that has made me firmly conclude that there are other dimensions- though how many, and how it all fits together, I haven't a scooby...

I post in response to your genuine interest... I don't often discuss these experiences, even with friends

 

[muser]

Which statement?

Take this pair of statements:



The first is nonsense. It makes no sense. Why would it have "no measurable strength"? In what sense would it exist if it had none?

The second is a weak defence of MW's failure to do any maths, or to interest anyone who can do any maths enough to do it.

MW has started from a conclusion - "I don't need to do maths" and made up an ad hoc argument to support it.

In the same way, if you could bear to read the entire correspondence, MW has started from a "revelation" of some kind - that there "must be" a Final Cause, if I recall correctly - and proceeded to make up ad-hoc arguments working backwards from that conviction.

This is why it/he/she is met with derision.

Alot of what you wrote you could put down to MW's enthusiasm, he has a website, has spoken to some learned people and feels his statement has validity (which I concur with). The standard model and other built to explain quantum mechanics are highly idealised, once permutations are introduced and then renormalised (the best models survives this), but none will survive extreme permutations. What MW is saying is that the maths can takes us so far, then we have to start accounting for the empirical evidence.
I, like MW, have no mathematical background though appreciate those that do, but not at the expense of real breakthroughs (the bells inequalities article)
What I'm trying to say is it give MW a fair hearing.

 

[jcsd]

QM is incredibly maths heavy, infact it's deeply mathematical in a way that classical theories aren't. The wavefunction is an abstract mathematical concept without starightforward physical interpretation (we know how the wavefunction relates to measurable physical quantities called observables, but the physical interpretaion of the wavefunction is still a matter of great debate and it's perfectly possible to do quantum mechanics without assigning any physical interpretation to the wavefunction).

 

[Knotted]

mw: "a non-local cause has no measurable strength as it acts at a distance so this action cannot be expressed in any mathematical formula anyway like the action of the forces."


The first is nonsense. It makes no sense. Why would it have "no measurable strength"? In what sense would it exist if it had none?

I disagree here. It makes sense, its just trivial. Take two objects moving relative to each other. The fact that they are in motion means this will 'cause' them to be at different distances to each other at different points in time. No forces involved. So classical physics has 'non-local causes' nevermind quantum mechanics. Nothing new here except the semantics. The problem seems to be that notions of cause and effect are intuitively sensible but very hard to pin down. In fact I don't think I've ever seen physics being discussed in these terms.

Now there is a sense in which quantum mechanics seems to defie Einsteinian relativity in that quantum 'causes' operate outside light cones. This is a puzzling phenonmenon, but then quantum mechanics is puzzling - phycists do not deny that there are intractable problems in reconciling relativity and quantum mechanics so I don't understand what MW's criticism of the scientific community is on this one.

I also don't mind someone coming up with non-mathematical theories. A mathematical nominalist would insist that mathematics is redundant in theory even if it is useful in practice. I don't agree with this viewpoint but its certainly not easy to dismiss. However MW seems to be anything but a nominalist - his/her insistance on a simplistic notion of causality is a case in point, so why pick on maths but not other universals?

I'm quite happy to discuss these things, I'm just puzzled about what MW is trying to say.

 

[jcsd]

Quantum mechanics takes some of it's motivation from special relativity, so it shouldn't be suprising tat it's simple to make quantum mechanics fully compatible with special relativity, it's just a case of choosing the right wave equation. Infact Schroedinger formulated his wave equation in 1925 which provides the basis for most non-relatvistic quantum mechanics, the first relativistic wave equation - the Dirac equation was formualted 3 years later in 1928.

 

[Knotted]

Quantum mechanics takes some of it's motivation from special relativity, so it shouldn't be suprising tat it's simple to make quantum mechanics fully compatible with special relativity, it's just a case of choosing the right wave equation. Infact Schroedinger formulated his wave equation in 1925 which provides the basis for most non-relatvistic quantum mechanics, the first relativistic wave equation - the Dirac equation was formualted 3 years later in 1928.

Yes you're quite right - as usual! I'll refine what I said by swapping 'Einsteinian relativity' for 'general relativity'. My point is that something has to give somewhere in current physical theory, hence all the work being done about string theory and loop quantum gravity etc.

 

[merlin wood]

I disagree here. It makes sense, its just trivial. Take two objects moving relative to each other. The fact that they are in motion means this will 'cause' them to be at different distances to each other at different points in time. No forces involved. So classical physics has 'non-local causes' nevermind quantum mechanics. Nothing new here except the semantics. The problem seems to be that notions of cause and effect are intuitively sensible but very hard to pin down. In fact I don't think I've ever seen physics being discussed in these terms.

Now there is a sense in which quantum mechanics seems to defie Einsteinian relativity in that quantum 'causes' operate outside light cones. This is a puzzling phenonmenon, but then quantum mechanics is puzzling - phycists do not deny that there are intractable problems in reconciling relativity and quantum mechanics so I don't understand what MW's criticism of the scientific community is on this one.

I also don't mind someone coming up with non-mathematical theories. A mathematical nominalist would insist that mathematics is redundant in theory even if it is useful in practice. I don't agree with this viewpoint but its certainly not easy to dismiss. However MW seems to be anything but a nominalist - his/her insistance on a simplistic notion of causality is a case in point, so why pick on maths but not other universals?

I'm quite happy to discuss these things, I'm just puzzled about what MW is trying to say.

Actually I think what I'm saying is now quite clearly summarised in the new introduction on my blog (cick my name here and then click on homepage).

My critcism of orthodox physics is that since 1927 when Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg announced their indeterminate - soon to be called 'Copehagen' - interpretaion, some three generations of physics students have slavishely concurred with the large majority of physicists who accept there can be no determinate cause and effect or hidden variables account of quantum behaviour beyond the experimental results.

Whereas a tiny minority of other physicists have, in fact, now developed a very detailed nonlocal causal hidden variables interpretation that is consistent with a wide range of experimental results. This cannot, by any means, be regarded as providing a sufficient explanation of the quantum evidence. But it is arguable that the non-local causal account is the only properly scientific approach to the problem. Whereas the other interpretaions are based on a priori philosophical assumptions.

One major result of this rejection of quantum causality is that present theoretical physics revolves around the persuit of some kind of unified theory of the forces - including string theory and the theories of quantum gravity - which supposes that, given the apparent lack of any other causation, a single theory of the forces would explain everything.

Whereas you can reasonably propose that because the forces that result from physical contact, electromagnetism and gravity continuously vary in their strength of effect they can only be described to explain effects up matter and energy that continuously vary. While the universe of atoms, molecules, living organisms, galaxies of stars and clusters of galaxies does not continuously vary. And this would also be so of the effects of a cause of quantum wave, spin and entanglement.

That is, a cause that has no measurable strength as it produces quantum entanglement, but may be regarded as having some strength where it acts upon matter and radiant enrgy from outside three dimensional space.

 

[merlin wood]

...and so I insist that this account

(I posted this earlier, and then deleted it, due to it being a very personal experience. I sent it as a PM directly to Eastender... subsequently, there has been interest in the post, and so I decided to submit it again. please bear in mind that this is a valuable and personal experience for me, and I am sensitive about discussing it on a public BB)

I can only really reply from my own experience. I had a 'peak experience' a few times in my life, where I entered a space which had more dimensions than the usual 3, or four if you include time. (I wasn't on drugs any of these times...)

in fact 'time' didn't seem to exist in this dimension- it was possible to 'see' time to the point of infinity, and indeed space, to the point of infinity. I speak now from a firmly 3D persepective, so I am no longer able to fully comprehend my experience, only to kind of 'translate it' into my current perspective. one very strange element was 'multiple perspectives'- I was simultaneously able to see an object from several viewpoints... and I felt myself to be simultaneously the size of an atom, and the size of the universe, infinite... to say it freaked me would be an understatement, and that was when the experience ended.

to your second question, is there any point in trying to concieve these dimensions? I would say emphatically 'yes'. for me, it gave me a sense of the order of the universe, and in fact, a kind of 'universal knowledge' that gave meaning to my life on earth.

does very much describe an experience of reallity.

 

[Knotted]

Actually I think what I'm saying is now quite clearly summarised in the new introduction on my blog (cick my name here and then click on homepage).

My critcism of orthodox physics is that since 1927 when Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg announced their indeterminate - soon to be called 'Copehagen' - interpretaion, some three generations of physics students have slavishely concurred with the large majority of physicists who accept there can be no determinate cause and effect or hidden variables account of quantum behaviour beyond the experimental results.

At least up until this point I'm quite sympathetic with what you are saying, but you have slipped in this phrase about cause and effect.

I suppose an effect is an observable effect and is related to the outcome of experiment, but what is a 'cause'? Are you refering to the initial state of the system or the relation between two (or more) particles? Bohm and de Broglie, for example were refering to the former definition when they were talking about causally deterministic interpretations, you appear to be refering to the latter definition (at least most of the time!).

 

[merlin wood]

At least up until this point I'm quite sympathetic with what you are saying, but you have slipped in this phrase about cause and effect.

I suppose an effect is an observable effect and is related to the outcome of experiment, but what is a 'cause'? Are you refering to the initial state of the system or the relation between two (or more) particles? Bohm and de Broglie, for example were refering to the former definition when they were talking about causally deterministic interpretations, you appear to be refering to the latter definition (at least most of the time!).

Not quite sure what you mean by the above.

I say that you can only measure an entanglement between two beams of particles because there is a relationship between component beams of particles with two forms of behaviour that remains despite the measurement of one beam.

So if you measure a beam of photons to be vertically polarised then another beam that is entangled with thi beam is measured to be horizontally polarised. Then if you measure the first beam to be horizontally polarised the oter will be measured to be vertically polarised. Try this with just a mixture of hoizontally and vertically polarised photons and this effect can't be mesured.

You can't measure any strength of a cause that produces the entanglement effect but you can say that a cause acts so as to conserve the entanglement.

Similarly, if you devise an experiment that produces wave interference on a screen at a certain distance from two slits, and then move the screen to a greater distance away from the slits then you get no interference pattern.

So you can say that the quantum particles readjust themselves so that they are in the same states as they were before they passed through the slits. And you can consider that this is so because a cause that produces the wave behaviour acts overall to conserve this uninterfered wave behaviour.

Then think of atoms or molecules of any form of matter and you can conclude there are no details that can be described of any force to explain how matter can remain organised out of its subatomic parts. But rather you can conclude that what would explain how atoms and molecules remain so organised would be a cause that acts so as to conserve this organisation despite the action of all the forces.

A form conserving cause cannot be measured to act with any strength of effect that varies with increasing distance between objects and so cannot be described as acting in fields that surround objects.

So such a cause could only act from outside the three dimensional space where the forces act and that is occupied by matter and the energy it radiates.

And you can ask could such an extra-dimenional cause produce all the organisation of matter in the universe where this cannot be described as continually varying like the observable effects upon matter and energy that are just produced by the forces?